Awad v. Ziriax
United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma
670 F.3d 1111 (2012)
- Written by Sean Carroll, JD
Facts
In a 2010 election, the State of Oklahoma included a ballot question to amend the Oklahoma State Constitution. The amendment would prevent Oklahoma courts from considering or relying on international law or Sharia Law. The amendment stated that the courts must rely on federal or state law or the laws of other states, provided that such law did not include Sharia Law, in making judicial decisions. The amendment also stated that courts must not consider the legal principles of other nations or cultures. Specifically, the courts could not consider international law or Sharia law. The ballot question passed. Muneer Awad (plaintiff), a Muslim living in Oklahoma, brought suit against Paul Ziriax (defendant), the head of the Oklahoma State Board of Elections, alleging that the amendment violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Awad sought a preliminary injunction to enjoin the state from certifying the results of the ballot question until his suit was heard on the merits.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Miles-LaGrange, C.J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 812,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
