In 2010, Oklahoma voters overwhelmingly approved a constitutional amendment with the expressed purpose of forbidding state courts from applying or considering Sharia law in their judicial decisions. It was a move that was viewed by many as having taken a tough stance on an issue so controversially unpopular and mirrored the larger national arguments about religious law and its place within the American courts. The Oklahoma Election Board, charged with certifying the results, landed in court after a federal district court's proceedings were appealed to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals. That ruling had granted a preliminary injunction, which barred the certification of the amendment. The lead plaintiff in the suit was Muneer Awad, executive director of the Oklahoma Chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, CAIR. It was not just the amendment for Awad, however; he was contesting constitutional ideas and protecting Muslim Americans in the state of Oklahoma. On November 29, 2010, the district court granted Awad's preliminary injunction. The Oklahoma Election Board filed an appeal, asserting, inter alia, that Awad's claims were not justiciable—that is, they did not belong in court—and, further, that the criteria for an injunction had not been met. The decision, however, was reversed by the Tenth Circuit, which affirmed that of the district court, and subsequently revalidated the claims by Awad and the propriety of the injunction (Awad v. Ziriax, et al., 2012).
The Parties
The defendants represented in the case were the Oklahoma Election Board, while the plaintiff was Muneer Awad. The claims that were brought against it by Awad are, in the view of the Board, political questions that are not conducive to judicial determination, and that the district court erred in its issuance of the temporary injunction. On the other hand, Awad, an entrenched Muslim American in his community, contended that this amendment was a clear violation of his First Amendment rights. He went on to explain that if enacted, the amendment would frustrate Muslims in Oklahoma in their pursuit of justice, in the free exercise of their religion, and would present an undue governmental influence over religion. Yet, this case was as much a case about individual rights as it was about the greater implications on religious freedom in America.
Case History
Awad filed the suit in the Oklahoma District Court on November 4, 2010. The initial objective of the filing was to stop the "Save Our State" amendment from being ratified. The court issued a temporary restraining order just as the Board was about to certify the amendment on November 9, 2010. It put an end to the amendment right there in its tracks, precisely the kind of critical legal maneuver against which Maumee Township should have already taken precautions. The court went ahead and convened a hearing on November 22, 2010, and listened to evidence from the parties. A week later, it issued an interim injunction, further delaying certification of the amendment. Not deterred, the Oklahoma Election Board, on December 1, 2010, filed an appeal seeking that the district court decisions be reversed.
Legal Issue
Several legal questions were inherent in this case. First, did the district court overstep its authority when it issued the preliminary injunction? Second, were the claims presented by Awad justiciable—that is, did they present a legitimate legal question that called for judicial intervention? Lastly, did the plaintiff succeed in meeting the strict requirements to show entitlement to an injunction?
Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals Decision
The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals rendered a dispositive decision, affirming the district court judgment to grant a preliminary injunction. Awad's claims under the Establishment Clause, the court held, were indeed justiciable, meaning they were appropriate for judicial review. Moreover, the court acknowledged that the "Save Our State" amendment was such a law that favored the Christian faith over the Muslim faith and that, should the injunction not be enforced, Awad would suffer irreparable harm. In balancing the potential harms, the court reasoned that Awad's injury implicated fundamental constitutional rights, and therefore outweighed any possible harm that would come to the appellants if the injunction is enforced. By contrast, the court refused to simply let the amendment stand for the nation's best interests, rather than constitutional interests.
Material Facts
The court's inquiry into the merit of the several claims proffered by Awad was exhaustive and utilized a three-legged formula for establishing justiciability. In this regard, the assessment mandated the court to determine the following: 1) Did Awad suffer an injury-in-fact?; 2) Was this injury traceable to the defendant's conduct?; 3) Was the injury potentially redressable by the court's decision? The court asserted the amendment had specifically targeted Awad's religious practices. Hence, it had caused a cognizable injury, not simply psychic hurt (Valley Forge, 1982). Such ruling was critical in the progress of the case.
In evaluating the cause for the claimed grounds of preliminary injunction, the court established that the amendment singled out the Muslim population and that no compelling state interest existed for such discriminatory purpose. Injunction was convincingly denied since the failure to grant this injunction would have caused irreparable harm, and more so, violations of constitutional rights are not subjected to further proof of injury (Kikumura v. Hurley, 2001). The court further accepted that the balance of injury favored Awad since the possible injury on his part is more significant than the one likely to be faced by appellants, and further proved that granting the injunction was within the public interest as held in G & V Lounge, Inc. v. Mich. Liquor Control Comm'n, 1994 .
Application of Sharia Law in Contracts
Under the freedom of contract principle, U.S. courts generally allow parties to include religious beliefs in their agreements, so long as these religious beliefs do not contravene public policy. The point here is that although U.S. courts are permitted to wield the principle by enforcing contracts even in terms of Shariah law, they will never enforce clauses that are discriminatory or those which impose harsh or punitive measures. Whether a U.S. court will apply the laws of a foreign country is determined by the principles of conflict of laws.
International Considerations
In today's globalized world, the decisions of foreign courts are sometimes relevant to U.S. jurisprudence, particularly if cases involve international treaties or agreements. Even while U.S. courts are primarily bound by domestic laws and the Constitution, they may consider foreign judicial decisions where these do not conflict with American legal principles.
Personal Statement
The decision of the court in Awad v. Ziriax was key in attesting to the constitutional assurances of protection against religious discrimination. In denying implementation of the "Save Our State" amendment, the court protected the rights of Muslim Americans to seek access to the courts in the free practice of their religion without improper government intrusion. The decision becomes very invincible, therefore, in asserting that the constitutional rights for all should be enforced no matter the public sentiment or political whims.