Posted to General on

Court Strikes Down Oklahoma Anti-Sharia Law

David Yerushalmi, Esq.

A federal appeals court struck down as unconstitutional an Oklahoma anti-Sharia law, which was authored by David Yerushalmi, a Lubavitcher from Phoenix, Arizona. [Update: correction issued in extended article].

From the JTA:

A federal appeals court has ruled as unconstitutional the state of Oklahoma’s ban on judges considering Islamic law in deciding cases.

The law to prevent Sharia law from being used in the state was struck down Tuesday by the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

Oklahoma voters had approved the ban in 2010, but a federal judge issued a preliminary injunction against the law last year before it could take effect.

The appeals court judges said in their opinion that the ban violated the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause.

No Oklahoma court has ever applied Sharia law to an opinion, according to reports.

Jewish groups opposing the law include the American Jewish Committee, the Anti-Defamation League, Agudath Israel of America and the Orthodox Union.

Update: We have received the following correction from David Yerushalmi:

Your caption under my picture is wrong. The Oklahoma state constitutional amendment that has been preliminarily enjoined by a federal district court and affirmed on appeal just the other day has nothing to do with me or the draft legislation called the American Laws for American Courts I drafted. ALAC has passed in 3 states and has been on the books at least since 2010 and has NEVER been challenged. It is pending in 20 states.

The Oklahoma effort was ill-conceived and poorly worded and the result was expected. Indeed, I warned the sponsors that it was wrong-headed. They chose not to take my advice. ALAC, on the other hand, is absolutely constitutional and it prevents the application or enforcement of any foreign law or judgment, including one predicated upon sharia, that would deprive a litigant of a constitutional liberty.

I would suggest a modification and clarification.

Thank you.

P.S. Here is a good article to explain why Oklahoma was not ALAC.

Related Articles

13 Comments

  • Chaim Tovim

    To #2; Which madness?! The Federal Court continued the madness instead of ending it. When you/your wife have to walk around in a veil, then you’ll see the madness full glory.

  • CR

    What part of “…nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof” is so hard for people to understand? This law should have been ashcanned in committee and never seen the light of day.

  • AFLC.US

    See this article for a better of explanation why the Ok const’l amendment was problematic and why the American Laws for American Courts, drafted by David Yerushalmi, has never been challenged and remain the law in 3 states and pending in dozens of others:
    January 11, 2012 1:21pm

  • Hypocrisy

    how is the fact that they can have sharia courts anydiffrent than how we have Beit Din which we go to for our halachic and even in many cases we are found going to a beit din instead of a usa court.
    How can someone who is in favor of the way of life of dealing with things within their own community go against the idea of a community run along those sharia lines?

  • 11213

    Sharia law is (l’havdil) similar to halachik ruling in that Muslims can go to community Sharia courts for arbitration and dispute settlement just like Yidden can go to Beis Din.
    The law that was struck down as unconstitutional stated that if the dispute was brought to a “secular” court after a Sharia ruling had been issued, the judge could not allow the Sharia ruling to affect his final decision in any way.
    This would have terrible ramifications if applied to our current system of Batei Din.
    One of the ways the United States constitution protects freedom of religion is by allowing religious communities to settle disputes (espescially those of a religious nature) among themselves. If they are later brought before a judge and the judge feels that a dispute is of a religious nature, they will turn to the community’s religious laws/prctices to make a better decision. (Think Hey Teves…)
    Allowing Sharia law into courts does not mean that women will have to wear a veil. It means that a specific community’s religious practices will be taken into account during legal proceedings. THIS IS POSITIVE FOR YIDDEN!

  • CHer

    to 6:

    Beis din is only there for two willing participants as opposed to sharia which intimidate especially their women.

  • Moshe

    Today the Sharia tomorrow the Halakha. A religious Jew cannot support such initiative. Let’s give the muslim to live as they want to.

  • Moshe

    B’H

    Today the Sharia tomorrow the Halakha. A religious Jew cannot support such initiative. Let’s give the muslim the right to live as they want to, the same way we use a beis din to resolve our conflict.

  • William Cook

    This isn’t about legislative tactics. The people of Oklahoma spoke – NO SHARIAH IN OKLAHOMA. They have a right to do that. The judge’s ruling was unconstitutional. Shariah law has no place in an American court, PERIOD! The wicked judge who struck down the law needs to be impeached and disbarred. People of Oklahoma, it is your legislature and your state laws. Are you going to let a jurisprudential jerk push you around?! Rid yourselves of that evil judge. If I was the Oklahoma Governor I would arrest and jail his sorry backside for defying the Constitution. I would toss him on an empty oil tanker headed for Saudi Arabia and let him live under Shariah until he cries uncle. Rid yourselves of that wicked man.

  • Milhouse

    #12 William Cook, you seem to have an exaggerated view of the powers of a state governor, especially going against a federal judge. If you were Oklahoma governor and tried to do such a thing he would hold you in contempt and jail YOUR sorry backside.

    The people of Oklahoma do not have the right to make unconstitutional laws, and this law was pretty plainly unconstitutional. It’s a constraint on the free exercise of one religion, and that’s not lawful.