Oklahoma lawmakers are reopening a long running fight over what judges can consider in state courts, advancing measures that would restrict the use of foreign and religious law, including one proposal that explicitly names Sharia law. The move has Muslim civil rights advocates sounding the alarm and has dredged up memories of a 2010 ballot measure that was later struck down in federal court. Supporters insist they are simply defending constitutional rights; critics say the effort is unnecessary at best and discriminatory at worst.
What the bills would do
House Joint Resolution 1040, filed by Rep. Gabe Woolley, would amend Article VII of the state constitution to tell courts they “shall not consider international law or Sharia law” when deciding cases. The proposal also says judges may not “look to the legal precepts of other nations or cultures” and that the ban would apply “to all cases before the respective courts including, but not limited to, cases of first impression.”
According to the text posted by the Oklahoma Legislature, the ballot title tells voters the measure would forbid courts from considering international law or Sharia law. If lawmakers approve it, the question would go to the statewide ballot.
Another constitutional push
A second resolution, HJR1084, is framed as the “Oklahoma Constitution Policy Act of 2026” and would add a new section to the state constitution that lawmakers are asking to send to voters. On the Legislature’s site, it appears as introduced by Rep. Kyle Hilbert and includes a ballot title and filing instructions. Backers have described HJR1040 and HJR1084 as alternate routes to the same destination, reinforcing that state courts must be rooted in U.S. and Oklahoma law.
Backers say it is about constitutional clarity
Supporters say the bills are religion neutral and focused on keeping courts grounded in federal and state law instead of foreign or extra constitutional codes. In a House press release, Rep. Gabe Woolley said his resolution is aimed at protecting individual liberties guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution and making sure Oklahoma courts stay anchored in American law. Woolley’s office also pointed back to the 2010 ballot question that targeted Sharia law and was later overturned, and supporters argue this round of drafting is meant to produce a version that can survive in court.
Critics say the bills single out Muslims
Civil rights advocates are not buying the neutrality argument. The Council on American Islamic Relations Oklahoma chapter has called the measures discriminatory and warned they would “write discrimination into the state constitution,” according to reporting by Oklahoma Voice. That report notes that the House Rules Committee voted 8 2 to advance one of the resolutions, a step critics say all but guarantees a bruising ballot campaign and eventual court fight if the measure keeps moving.
Legal context
Lawyers do not have to squint to see the legal risks of singling out one religion. In 2012, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit struck down Oklahoma’s 2010 “Save Our State” amendment, which explicitly targeted Sharia, finding that it discriminated among religions and could not stand. The ruling in Awad v. Ziriax (10th Cir.) suggests that any similar religion specific constitutional amendment would be met with immediate legal challenges if it ever reached the ballot or took effect.
Where it goes from here
Both HJR1040 and HJR1084 were filed early in the legislative session and sent to the House Rules Committee, where legislative trackers currently show them sitting. If either resolution clears both chambers, the text instructs the Secretary of State to send the proposal to voters as a constitutional amendment. That would tee up a statewide ballot showdown, with lawsuits likely following close behind. The measures’ status and sponsor lists are available on LegiScan and on the Legislature’s own bill pages.
Local fallout
The new proposals land in the middle of already heightened tensions over mosque projects and public debate about Islam in Oklahoma, a climate that has previously drawn an Attorney General review and loud pushback from Muslim community groups. Reporting earlier this year detailed a bitter rezoning fight over a proposed Broken Arrow mosque and CAIR Oklahoma’s warning that anti Muslim rhetoric fueled much of the resistance, as reported by Public Radio Tulsa. Community leaders say that history makes the latest constitutional talk especially fraught and likely to trigger more legal and public relations battles if legislators press ahead.
Bottom line
For now, both resolutions remain bottled up in committee, and lawmakers have to decide whether to keep pushing or scale back the language. Advocates and legal experts say that if voters are ever asked to approve a measure that names a particular religion, court challenges are virtually guaranteed, meaning this fight is likely to play out both at the ballot box and in the courtroom.
