Back in 2010, the voters of Oklahoma approved a state constitutional amendment that would forbid the consideration of Sharia law when deciding cases in the OK court system. The measure passed with overwhelming support but was immediately targeted in a lawsuit filed by Muneer Awad, - a US Citizen, a Muslim, and former executive director of the Oklahoma Chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations.
Shortly thereafter, U.S. District Judge Vicki Miles-LaGrange issued a temporary injunction blocking the law's implementation. At the time, she claimed it likely violated both the establishment and free exercise clauses of the U.S. Constitution. Now, she's ruled that the law is indeed unconstitutional and has issued a permanent injunction which blocks its implementation.
In her ruling, Miles-LaGrange wrote:
"While the public has an interest in the will of the voters being carried out, the Court finds that the public has a more profound and long-term interest in upholding an individual's constitutional rights."
So far, no one has explained how an individual has a constitutional right to have the US court system consider Sharia law.
The main part of Miles-LaGrange's justification for blocking the law is that it violates the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment. The Establishment clause is the line that says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." It's followed immediately by the Free Exercise Clause which says "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
What's bizarre is that the Establishment Clause is what's led us to the concept of "separation of church and state." Prohibiting Sharia from being a consideration during court cases would seem only to strengthen that separation. In addition, a Sharia ban does nothing to prohibit free exercise. Muslims would still be free to practice their faith, but the set of laws their religion espouses would not be taken into account during trials, etc.
....which is what the left is constantly arguing for in cases where Christianity comes into play.
Miles-LaGrange doesn't care. In her ruling she claims that since there hasn't yet been a case where the consideration of Sharia has proven to be a factor, there's no reason to pre-emptively bar it.
"Having carefully reviewed the parties’ submissions, and for the same reasons set forth by the Tenth Circuit, the Court finds that defendants have failed to assert a compelling state interest and have, therefore, failed to satisfy strict scrutiny."
The problem with this logic is that we're subject to all sorts of laws which pre-emptively ban or criminalize certain activities. The suggestion that we don't need to worry about something, simply because it hasn't happened yet, is ridiculous.
So, judges, feel free to consider Sharia law in Oklahoma.
...but don't let us catch you taking Catholicism into account...
Be sure to "like" Robert Laurie over on Facebook and follow him on Twitter. You'll be glad you did.
Check out more on this case over at The Tulsa World.
