In a disturbing trend, anti-Muslim bigotry has recently crept into state legislatures around the country. Several states have passed or attempted to pass laws designed to prevent courts from applying Islamic or “Sharia” law, as well as “foreign” or “international law.” Some, such as a constitutional amendment passed in Oklahoma, mention Sharia specifically, in addition to international law. Others only mention foreign or international law. Whatever the specific terminology, all of these attempts raise serious red flags.
Efforts to single out Muslims and to advance the ugly idea that anything Islamic is un-American are unjust and discriminatory and should be rejected. Laws that single out Sharia violate the First Amendment by treating one belief system as suspect. Attempts to prevent courts from considering international or foreign law suffer from constitutional flaws and undermine the ability of courts to interpret laws and treaties regarding global business, international human rights and family law issues such as international marriages and adoptions.
Although the ACLU successfully challenged the Oklahoma law, leading a federal court to strike down the amendment and prevent its implementation, the trend to implement these misguided bans is not slowing down. Some politicians have taken up the unfounded idea that American Muslims somehow wish to impose Islamic law on U.S. courts as a campaign issue. Other politicians seek to score political points by demonizing anything foreign or international. We continue to monitor policies at the state and federal levels closely to ensure that discrimination is not written into the law of the land and that the U.S. upholds its obligations under domestic and international law.
Related Issues
-
OklahomaAug 2013
National Security
Religious Liberty
Muneer Awad v. Paul Ziriax, Oklahoma State Board of Elections, et al.Muneer Awad v. Paul Ziriax, Oklahoma State Board of Elections, et al.
Last year, state legislators in Oklahoma placed an unprecedented, discriminatory proposal to amend the Oklahoma Constitution to target the religious practices of Muslims on the November ballot. That measure strictly prohibits state courts from using or even considering “Sharia” or “international” law in their decision making. Although sponsors freely admit that there have been absolutely no instances of so-called “Sharia” threats in Oklahoma, they officially labeled the proposal the “Save Our State Amendment,” and it ultimately passed with over 70 percent of the vote. -
Press ReleaseJan 2012
Religious Liberty
Court Upholds Ruling Blocking Oklahoma Sharia and International Law BanCourt Upholds Ruling Blocking Oklahoma Sharia and International Law Ban
Discriminatory and Unnecessary Law Maligned American Muslims and Presented Legal Bind For Courts FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CONTACT: (212) 549-2666; media@aclu.org DENVER, CO – A federal appeals court today unanimously upheld a ruling that blocked implementation of a discriminatory and unnecessary Oklahoma state constitutional amendment that would have prohibited state courts from considering what is broadly described as Islamic “Sharia law” and “international law.” The court concluded that by singling out Islam for unfavorable treatment in state courts, the law likely violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. The court rejected the state’s argument that the constitutional amendment was necessary to protect against improper application of Sharia law, explaining: “Appellants do not identify any actual problem the challenged amendment seeks to solve. Indeed, they admitted . . . that they 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.” The American Civil Liberties Union and the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) challenged the amendment on behalf of Muneer Awad, executive director of CAIR’s Oklahoma chapter. “As the court recognized, this amendment did nothing more than target one faith for official condemnation,” said Daniel Mach, director of the ACLU Program on Freedom of Religion and Belief. “Even the state admits that there has never been any problem with Oklahoma courts wrongly applying religious law. The so-called ‘Save Our State Amendment’ was a solution in search of a problem, and a blatantly discriminatory solution at that.” “No one in Oklahoma deserves to be treated like a second-class citizen,” said Ryan Kiesel, executive director of the ACLU of Oklahoma. “This proposed amendment was an affront to the Constitution and everything it stands for.” The proposed constitutional amendment also would have barred state courts from applying or considering “international law.” “Attempts to paint international law as irrelevant to the American legal system are wrong-headed and dangerous,” said Chandra Bhatnagar, senior attorney with the ACLU Human Rights Program. “Preventing courts from considering international or foreign law violates our Constitution and undermines the ability of courts to interpret laws and treaties regarding global business, international human rights and even family law issues including international marriage and adoption. For U.S. global leadership to be taken seriously, courts must be able to honor international commitments consistent with our constitutional values.” More information on this case can be found here: www.aclu.org/religion-belief/muneer-awad-v-paul-ziriax-oklahoma-state-board-elections-et-al More information on bans on Sharia and international law can be found here: www.aclu.org/religion-belief/bans-sharia-and-international-law -
News & CommentaryFeb 2023
National Security
Religious Liberty
ACLU Lens: The Truth Behind the Anti-Sharia MovementACLU Lens: The Truth Behind the Anti-Sharia Movement
-
News & CommentaryFeb 2023
National Security
Religious Liberty
Debunking the Mythical "Sharia Threat" to Our Judicial SystemDebunking the Mythical "Sharia Threat" to Our Judicial System
-
Press ReleaseMay 2011
National Security
+2 Issues
ACLU And CAIR Urge Court To Uphold Ruling Blocking Oklahoma Sharia And International Law BanACLU And CAIR Urge Court To Uphold Ruling Blocking Oklahoma Sharia And International Law Ban
Discriminatory And Unnecessary Law Maligns American Muslims And Presents Legal Bind For Courts FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CONTACT: (212) 549-2666; media@aclu.org OKLAHOMA CITY, OK – The American Civil Liberties Union and the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) filed a brief with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit late Monday, urging the court to uphold a ruling that blocked implementation of a discriminatory and unnecessary Oklahoma state constitutional amendment that prohibits courts from applying – or even considering – what is broadly described as Islamic "Sharia law" and “international law.” The measure, officially titled the “Save Our State Amendment,” was temporarily enjoined last year by a lower court for blatantly disfavoring an entire faith and denying Oklahoma’s Muslims access to the judicial system on the same terms as every other citizen. The ACLU and CAIR are seeking to have the amendment permanently struck down. “This amendment is nothing more than a blatant attempt to subvert the Constitution by enshrining anti-Muslim bigotry into state law,” said Daniel Mach, Director of the ACLU Program on Freedom of Religion and Belief. “The idea that followers of an entire faith should be treated like second-class citizens is ugly, discriminatory and profoundly un-American.” “ This brief and the court’s previous ruling make clear that our Constitution does not tolerate using state laws to target religious minorities,” said CAIR Staff Attorney Gadeir Abbas. Although even the amendment’s supporters concede that Oklahoma’s courts have never improperly applied Sharia law, the measure was placed on the ballot by the legislature and approved by Oklahoma voters in November 2010. That vote prompted Muneer Awad, Executive Director of CAIR’s Oklahoma chapter, to file suit alleging violations of his rights under the Free Exercise Clause and Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Awad was deeply concerned that the law was not only discriminatory, but also would prevent courts from recognizing personal legal documents that incorporate his beliefs, such as his last will and testament. When the district court issued an order blocking implementation of the law, the state appealed. “As a citizen of Oklahoma, it is appalling to think that my state representatives regard my belief system and that of other Muslims as a threat,” said Awad. “This law singles us out for no reason, and cuts us off from the protections of the law against discrimination that are granted to all other faiths.” In addition to banning courts from considering Sharia law, the amendment’s international law provision also suffers from major constitutional flaws. The law could prohibit Oklahoma courts from respecting international commitments, honoring global business agreements, and recognizing international adoptions and marriages conducted overseas. “Barring courts from considering international law is not only constitutionally problematic but it is also unwise and counter-productive,” said Jamil Dakwar, Director of the ACLU Human Rights Program. “The U.S. can hardly be taken seriously as a leader of global human rights, or even free trade, if states are permitted to disregard international law.” Attorneys on the case include CAIR's Abbas, the ACLU Program on Freedom of Religion and Belief's Mach and Heather L. Weaver, ACLU of Oklahoma cooperating counsel Micheal Salem and Joseph Thai, Professor at the University of Oklahoma College of Law. The response brief can be found here: www.aclu.org/religion-belief/awad-v-ziriax-plaintiff-appellee-response-b... More information on this case can be found here: www.aclu.org/religion-belief/muneer-awad-v-paul-ziriax-oklahoma-state-bo... More information on bans on Sharia and international law can be found here: www.aclu.org/religion-belief/bans-sharia-and-international-law