Awad v. Ziriax
| Decision Date | 15 August 2013 |
| Docket Number | Case No. CIV–10–1186–M. |
| Citation | 966 F.Supp.2d 1198 |
| Parties | Muneer AWAD, Adam Soltani, Imad Enchassi, Douglas Mock, Patricia Schwagmeyer, Plaintiffs, v. Paul ZIRIAX, Secretary; Steve Curry, Chairman; Tom Montgomery, Diane Spurlock, members of the Oklahoma State Election Board, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Oklahoma |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Chandra S. Bhatnagar, American Civil Liberties Union, New York, NY, Daniel Mach, Heather L. Weaver, American Civil Liberties Union, Washington, DC, Micheal C. Salem, Salem Law Offices, Norman, OK, for Plaintiffs.
Janis W. Preslar, Scott D. Boughton, Attorney General's Office, Patrick R. Wyrick, Gable & Gotwals, Oklahoma City, OK, for Defendants.
Before the Court are plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment and defendants' Cross Motion for Summary Judgment. The matter has been fully briefed. Based upon the parties' submissions, the Court makes its determination.
On May 18, 2010, the Oklahoma House of Representatives voted to approve House Joint Resolution 1056 (“HJR 1056”), and the Oklahoma Senate followed suit on May 24, 2010. The joint resolution mandated that a proposed constitutional amendment, entitled the “Save Our State Amendment,” be placed on the next electoral ballot for a vote of the people. The proposed constitutional amendment provided:
The Courts ... when exercising their judicial authority, shall uphold and adhere to the law as provided in the United States Constitution, the Oklahoma Constitution, the United States Code, federal regulations promulgated pursuant thereto, established common law, the Oklahoma Statutes and rules promulgated pursuant thereto, and if necessary the law of another state of the United States provided the law of the other state does not include Sharia Law, in making judicial decisions. The courts shall not look to the legal precepts of other nations or cultures. Specifically, the courts shall not consider international law or Sharia Law. The provisions of this subsection shall apply to all cases before the respective courts including, but not limited to, cases of first impression.
HJR 1056 at 3. During conference, the legislators added the language “provided the law of the other state does not include Sharia Law” to the provision allowing courts to consider the law of another state of the United States.
The proposed ballot title stated:
This measure amends the State Constitution. It would change a section that deals with courts of this state. It would make courts rely on federal and state laws when deciding cases. It would forbid courts from looking at international law or Sharia Law when deciding cases. SHALL THE PROPOSAL BE APPROVED?
After passage of HJR 1056, the Secretary of State forwarded the proposed ballot title to the Attorney General for review, as required by law. Determining that the proposed ballot title did not adequately explain the effect of the proposed amendment because it failed to define what either Sharia Law or international law is, the Attorney General revised it to read:
This measure amends the State Constitution. It changes a section that deals with the courts of this state. It would amend Article 7, Section 1. It makes courts rely on federal and state law when deciding cases. It forbids courts from considering or using international law. It forbids courts from considering or using Sharia Law.
International law is also known as the law of nations. It deals with the conduct of international organizations and independent nations, such as countries, states and tribes. It deals with their relationship with each other. It also deals with some of their relationships with persons.
The law of nations is formed by the general assent of civilized nations. Sources of international law also include international agreements, as well as treaties.
Sharia Law is Islamic law. It is based on two principal sources, the Koran and the teaching of Mohammed.
FOR THE PROPOSAL—YES ________
AGAINST THE PROPOSAL—NO ________
Final Ballot Title [docket no. 17–1, p. 13–14].
The Attorney General then submitted the revised ballot title to the Secretary of State, Senate President Pro Tempore, and House Speaker for their review. No objections or concerns about the proposed revisions to the ballot title were expressed, and with no objections, the ballot title was finalized and placed on the ballot as Oklahoma State Question 755 (“SQ 755”).
On November 2, 2010, 70.08% of Oklahomans who voted approved SQ 755. Once the Oklahoma State Board of Elections certifies the election results, the amendment will become a part of the Oklahoma Constitution.
On November 4, 2010, plaintiff Muneer Awad filed this action, challenging the constitutionality of SQ 755's amendment to the Oklahoma Constitution and seeking to enjoin the certification of the election results for SQ 755. Plaintiff Awad alleged that SQ 755 violated the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. Plaintiff Awad is an American citizen born in Ann Arbor, Michigan, and a devout, lifelong Muslim. At the time of SQ 755's passage, plaintiff Awad was the executive director of the Oklahoma Chapter of the Council on American–Islamic Relations (“CAIR–OK”) and resided in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.
On November 8, 2010, a hearing on plaintiff Awad's motion for a temporary injunction was held, and this Court orally granted a temporary restraining order, see docket no. 6, and issued a written opinion one day later, see docket no. 7. On November 22, 2010, a preliminary injunction hearing was held. On November 29, 2010, the Court granted the preliminary injunction, finding plaintiff Awad had standing, his claims were ripe, SQ 755 likely violated both the Free Exercise Clause and the Establishment Clause, the balance of harms weighed strongly in favor of plaintiff Awad, the alleged violation of plaintiff Awad's First Amendment rights constituted irreparable injury, and the public interest demanded protection of these rights. See November 29, 2010 Order, 754 F.Supp.2d 1298 (W.D.Okla.2010) [docket no. 20]. Defendants filed a timely notice of appeal on December 1, 2010. On January 10, 2012, the Tenth Circuit issued its ruling, affirming this Court's grant of a preliminary injunction. See Awad v. Ziriax, 670 F.3d 1111 (10th Cir.2012).
On July 29, 2012, the First Amended Complaint was filed in this case, joining Adam Soltani, Imad Enchassi, Douglas Mock, and Patricia Schwagmeyer as additional plaintiffs. Plaintiffs Awad, Soltani, and Enchassi assert claims under the Free Exercise Clause and the Establishment Clause, and plaintiffs Mock and Schwagmeyer assert claims under the Equal Protection Clause, the Due Process Clause, and the Supremacy Clause. Plaintiff Soltani is an American citizen born in the United States, is a devout, lifelong Muslim, and is currently employed by CAIR–OK as Executive Director. Plaintiff Enchassi is an American citizen, a lifelong Muslim, and the Imam for the Islamic Society of Greater Oklahoma City. Plaintiffs Mock and Schwagmeyer are faculty members at the University of Oklahoma in the Department of Biology, who were married in Scotland on January 8, 1983. On August 1, 2012, plaintiff Awad moved to New York City to accept a position with another CAIR affiliate.
The parties have now cross-moved for summary judgment on the sole issue in this case—whether defendants should be permanently enjoined from certifying the election results for SQ 755.
For a party to obtain a permanent injunction, it must prove: (1) actual success on the merits; (2) irreparable harm unless the injunction is issued; (3) the threatened injury outweighs the harm that the injunction may cause the opposing party; and (4) the injunction, if issued, will not adversely affect the public interest.
Sw. Stainless, LP v. Sappington, 582 F.3d 1176, 1191 (10th Cir.2009) (internal quotations and citation omitted).
1. Establishment Clause claim
The Tenth Circuit found that plaintiff Awad had standing to bring his EstablishmentClause claim. Specifically, the Tenth Circuit held:
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.
Awad, 670 F.3d at 1123 (emphasis in original). The Tenth Circuit further held that the injury alleged by plaintiff Awad is imminent and not conjectural or hypothetical. Id. Finally, the Tenth Circuit held that plaintiff Awad “has shown that his alleged injuries are fairly traceable to the challenged action of defendants and are likely to be redressed by a favorable decision.” Id. at 1124 (internal quotations and citation omitted).
In their response and cross motion for summary judgment, defendants state as follows:
while we disagree with the Tenth Circuit's holding on [Awad's] standing to bring his Establishment Clause claim ... we acknowledge that the Tenth Circuit found that Awad had standing. And while Awad's having moved out of state has likely deprived him of standing, Plaintiffs Enchassi, and Soltani standing allegations for purposes of the Establishment Clause are substantially similar to those considered by the Tenth Circuit.
Defendants' Response to Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment and Cross Motion for Summary Judgment and Brief in Support at 3, n. 1.
Having reviewed the parties' submissions, and for the reasons set forth in the Tenth Circuit's opinion, the Court finds plaintiffs Enchassi and Soltani have standing to bring their Establishment Clause claim.
To continue reading
Request your trial