Written by Don Byrd
In an important victory for religious liberty, the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals has unanimously affirmed a lower court’s ruling that put a halt to the anti-Sharia constitutional amendment adopted by Oklahoma voters in 2010. Today’s decision emphasized two conclusions: 1) that the plaintiff Muneer Awad faces very real and imminent damaging consequences if the measure is allowed to become law, and 2) that the amendment improperly targets a single religion without identifying a compelling reason to do so.
First, here is an excerpt from the standing analysis, in which the court compares Mr. Awad’s claim of injury with that of plaintiffs in government-sponsored religious display cases:
Mr. Awad alleges injuries beyond the “personal and unwelcome contact” that suffices for standing with religious symbols. He alleges that the amendment condemns his religious faith and exposes him to disfavored treatment. Such condemnation was not present in the religious symbol cases. The plaintiffs in those cases certainly may have felt that a religious display conflicted with their religious beliefs or non-belief, but those symbols did not expressly target and condemn a specific religion. Mr. Awad alleges that the amendment condemns his religion and prohibits him from relying on his religion’s legal precepts in Oklahoma courts, while not prohibiting people of all other faiths to rely on the legal precepts of their religions.
Mr. Awad’s alleged injury goes significantly beyond a “psychological consequence” from disagreement with observed government conduct, “hurt feelings” from a presidential proclamation requesting citizens to pray, or “a person’s deep and genuine offense to a defendant’s actions.”
The harm alleged by Mr. Awad stems from a constitutional directive of exclusion and disfavored treatment of a particular religious legal tradition….In this case, the Oklahoma Legislature did not simply adopt a non-binding resolution opposing the consideration or use of Sharia law in state courts, it proposed and the electorate agreed to enshrine such a prohibition in the state’s constitution. Mr. Awad is facing the consequences of a statewide election approving a constitutional measure that would disfavor his religion relative to others….
We conclude that Mr. Awad’s allegation—that the proposed state amendment expressly condemns his religion and exposes him and other Muslims in Oklahoma to disfavored treatment—suffices to establish the kind of direct injury-in-fact necessary to create Establishment Clause standing.
Second, an excerpt from the section dealing with Mr. Awad’s likelihood of success in the case. Here the court notes that the state provides no compelling reason for the discriminatory language of the amendment.
Appellants do not identify any actual problem the challenged amendment seeks to solve. Indeed, they admitted at the preliminary injunction hearing 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.
Given the lack of evidence of any concrete problem, any harm Appellants seek to remedy with the proposed amendment is speculative at best and cannot support a compelling interest.
…
Even if the state could identify and support a reason to single out and restrict Sharia law in its courts, the amendment’s complete ban of Sharia law is hardly an exercise of narrow tailoring.
The Baptist Joint Committee filed an amicus brief with the court arguing for just such an outcome. Kudos to the BJC and other religious liberty advocates in this successful effort which allows Mr. Awad’s suit challenging the law to go forward with the injunction in place preventing its enactment.
