Foreign law bans have already been enacted in Oklahoma, Kansas, Louisiana, Tennessee, and Arizona, while a related ban on the enforcement of “any religious code” has been enacted in South Dakota.
—
This post originally appeared at ThinkProgress
By Ian Millhiser
On Thursday, a federal court permanently struck down an amendment to Oklahoma’s constitution that would have banned the non-existent practice of Oklahoma courts replacing American law with Islamic law, among other things. The unconstitutional amendment provided that “[t]he courts shall not look to the legal precepts of other nations or cultures. Specifically, the courts shall not consider international law or Sharia law.” A federal appeals court previously upheld a temporary injunction blocking the Oklahoma amendment; Thursday’s decision holds that the injunction should be permanent.
There was never any serious doubt that this attempt to write animus towards Muslims into a state constitution violates the United States Constitution. As the Supreme Court held in Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye v. Hialeah, “[a]t a minimum, the protections of the Free Exercise Clause pertain if the law at issue discriminates against some or all religious beliefs or regulates or prohibits conduct because it is undertaken for religious reasons.” Moreover, it’s not even clear what the explicitly anti-Islamic language in this amendment was supposed to accomplish. As the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit explained in upholding the temporary injunction against the amendment, Oklahoma officials “did not know of even a single instance where an Oklahoma court had applied Sharia law or used the legal precepts of other nations or cultures, let alone that such applications or uses had resulted in concrete problems in Oklahoma.”
Nevertheless, similar attempts to ban Islamic law or otherwise prevent courts from seeking guidance from foreign sources are common among conservative lawmakers. As a recent Center for American Progress report explains, “lawmakers in 32 states have introduced and debated these types of bills. Foreign law bans have already been enacted in Oklahoma, Kansas, Louisiana, Tennessee, and Arizona, while a related ban on the enforcement of ‘any religious code’ has been enacted in South Dakota.”
Photo: M.S.M/Flickr
“Oklahoma officials “did not know of even a single instance where an Oklahoma court had applied Sharia law or used the legal precepts of other nations or cultures, let alone that such applications or uses had resulted in concrete problems in Oklahoma.” So their argument for not enacting a law is that there aren’t any problems yet. What problems would this law have caused unless someone tried to use sharia law in an Oklahoma court? The law can’t be discriminatory if no one was discriminated against. It’s supposed to make more sense to strike down a law that hasn’t and… Read more »
“Moreover, it’s not even clear what the explicitly anti-Islamic language in this amendment was supposed to accomplish.”
“[t]he courts shall not look to the legal precepts of other nations or cultures. Specifically, the courts shall not consider international law or Sharia law.”
I was not aware that you had to have a problem before you could write a law to address that issue. That’s at least a little interesting.
“…while a related ban on the enforcement of ‘any religious code’ has been enacted in South Dakota.”
Whether necessary or not wouldn’t this be a supporting law of the first amendment?
Hi Thinkprogress Are you saying that Muslims can expect Sharia or international law to rule over a nations laws? Or do I misunderstand you completely ? You are well aware that Sharia in many fields will come to conclusions in conflicts differently from the law in the state or the country. Naturally. I do not know the situation in America, I only read about the use of Sharia in Germany and UK. But then Europe has EU, and its laws to deal with in addition to it’s each nations laws. And then we also have Sharia. You write : ✺”There… Read more »
If I’m not mistake even in Muslim countries sharia law only holds if both parties to the dispute are Muslim and agree to abide by a sharia court. It’s an alternate or parallel court system and not the only one.