An Unnecessary Amendment

Residents of the state of Oklahoma recently passed an amendment that bars Oklahoma judges from considering international laws—and specifically Islamic Sharia law—in formulating rulings. The amendment passed with 70 percent of the vote, but a federal judge issued a temporary restraining order to block the amendment after a citizen of Oklahoma came forth, claiming that the Islam was specifically targeted by the amendment and that the law is thus deplorable. We agree with the citizen’s complaint: The amendment should indeed be overturned, as it explicitly and unnecessarily targets a religion and institutionalizes bias against Islam.

Despite the fact that the amendment was passed in a Bible Belt state in which the majority of the population practices Christianity, the amendment makes no specific mentions of canonic law or Talmudic law. Singling out a minority religion, as the amendment does, is inappropriate and adds nothing to the amendment itself. The amendment should have just commented on “international law” and left out any particular mention of Sharia law; the broader, former term encompasses the latter. Moreover, cases for using Sharia law in a court of law are not rampant enough throughout society to merit specific mention. Although Sharia law is relevant to a subset of the population, it is not the norm through the U.S. population and needs no particular attention when creating an amendment about international law. As written, the choice in the wording of the amendment plausibly reflects an intolerable prejudice against Islam as a religion.

Some proponents of the amendment claim that America is on a slippery slope toward recognizing Sharia law, often citing an incident in New Jersey in 2009 in which a judge refused to issue a restraining order against a man who forced sex on his unwilling wife. The man’s argument was based on a Sharia law, and the judge foolishly found the defendant’s actions permissible because they were in line with the man’s religious practices. In this case, however, the ruling was promptly overturned by an appeals court. Unsurprisingly, American legal code took precedence—and there is no reason to believe that an amendment is necessary to ensure such a hierarchy between American laws and foreign laws holds in the future. There are checks in place to make sure that U.S. law is the standard for decisions in our nation.

It is true that several states have laws that bar judges from taking into account foreign legal materials. Still, these laws may discriminate against outsiders of the United States, but they fall short of singling out a specific religious group. In contrast, the Oklahoma law unnecessarily targets Islam and, for that reason, must be overturned. We commend Judge Vicki Miles-LaGrange for using her powers to restrain this stigmatizing piece of legislation.