Written by Don Byrd
A federal judge in Oklahoma made permanent yesterday her temporary injunction (affirmed by the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals) barring enforcement of the state’s law banning sharia law. Because the state failed to demonstrate a “compelling state interest based on an actual problem,” she argued, targeting Sharia law violates both the Free Exercise and Establishment clauses of the First Amendment.
The court rejected the state’s argument that the measure could be saved by simply removing the offending passages and leaving the rest.
From the opinion (pdf):
Specifically, the Court finds that the purpose of the amendment would be significantly altered by severing the offending language and that the Legislature would not have enacted the remainder of the amendment without the offending language. Having reviewed the numerous statements by the legislators who authored the amendment, it is abundantly clear that the primary purpose of the amendment was to specifically target and outlaw Sharia law and to act as a preemptive strike against Sharia law to protect Oklahoma from a perceived “threat” of Sharia law being utilized in Oklahoma courts. . .
Furthermore, the Court finds that plaintiffs have shown that the voters would not have approved the amendment without the unconstitutional provisions. Having carefully reviewed the evidence submitted in support of plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment, the Court finds that the public debate, public discussions, articles, radio ads and robocalls regarding SQ 755 all primarily, and overwhelmingly, focused on the Sharia law provisions of the amendment. Given this context, the Court finds any reasonable voter would have perceived SQ 755 as a referendum on Sharia law.
You can read coverage from the Tulsa World here.
