Opponents may argue that the SHARIA law does in fact pass the Lemon Test. They would say it is in fact secular because it protects the U.S. Constitution, the law has not inhibited Islam or Muslim Americans, and that it limits U.S. entanglement with religion by preventing religious views from being considered in U.S. courts. However, they fail to see how by banning Sharia law, they are forcing the State to engage in religious issues, as shown through Awad v. Ziriax. It is clear that the SHARIA law does not pass the Lemon Test and therefore violates the Establishment Clause.
THE LAW CANNOT SURVIVE STRICT SCRUTINY
The SHARIA law cannot pass the Strict Scrutiny approach to Equal Protection under the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. …show more content…
security interests, as the January 12th bombers were members of Al-Qa’ida in North America, by banning Sharia law, it denies Muslim Americans equal protection under U.S. law. As stated, Muslim Americans often consult Sharia on the basis of contractual agreements, such as marriage and inheritance. By preventing them from following these contracts as part of their personal beliefs, the State provides them less protection in the eyes of the law and consequently violates the Fourteenth Amendment. Therefore, the SHARIA law fails to pass Strict Scrutiny as state interests are undermined by constitutional …show more content…
Canada, which can be considered to be the most similar country to the United States in terms of both legal and culture, is also considered to be socially more progress than the U.S. If negative associations with Islam were too strong in Canada for the implementation of Sharia-based adjudication alongside secular policy, then it is highly unlikely that the American population would accept such an addition. Given these views alongside the limited number of Islamic legal scholars with American law degrees, it will be a long time before such tribunals are present in the U.S., despite the growing needs of Muslim Americans for such adaptations.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the amicus supports the Plaintiff’s claims to overturn the SHARIA law, as it is discriminatory in nature by singling out Islam, it violates the Establishment Clause, it cannot survive Strict Scrutiny, it violates the principle of Comity, and it is simply unnecessary. This law, which is unconstitutional, is a bigger threat to the U.S. legal system than Sharia law, due to its lack of integrity and coherence with American values. As such, it is recommended the Court find in favor of the Plaintiff and permanently prohibit the SHARIA law without the need for additional
THE LAW CANNOT SURVIVE STRICT SCRUTINY
The SHARIA law cannot pass the Strict Scrutiny approach to Equal Protection under the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. …show more content…
security interests, as the January 12th bombers were members of Al-Qa’ida in North America, by banning Sharia law, it denies Muslim Americans equal protection under U.S. law. As stated, Muslim Americans often consult Sharia on the basis of contractual agreements, such as marriage and inheritance. By preventing them from following these contracts as part of their personal beliefs, the State provides them less protection in the eyes of the law and consequently violates the Fourteenth Amendment. Therefore, the SHARIA law fails to pass Strict Scrutiny as state interests are undermined by constitutional …show more content…
Canada, which can be considered to be the most similar country to the United States in terms of both legal and culture, is also considered to be socially more progress than the U.S. If negative associations with Islam were too strong in Canada for the implementation of Sharia-based adjudication alongside secular policy, then it is highly unlikely that the American population would accept such an addition. Given these views alongside the limited number of Islamic legal scholars with American law degrees, it will be a long time before such tribunals are present in the U.S., despite the growing needs of Muslim Americans for such adaptations.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the amicus supports the Plaintiff’s claims to overturn the SHARIA law, as it is discriminatory in nature by singling out Islam, it violates the Establishment Clause, it cannot survive Strict Scrutiny, it violates the principle of Comity, and it is simply unnecessary. This law, which is unconstitutional, is a bigger threat to the U.S. legal system than Sharia law, due to its lack of integrity and coherence with American values. As such, it is recommended the Court find in favor of the Plaintiff and permanently prohibit the SHARIA law without the need for additional