Awad v. Ziriax 1
C12 - Business Law
Case Analysis 4
Awad v. Ziriax
Summarize the facts of the case
Approval was received after gaining a majority of votes from Oklahoma residents on
November 2nd, 2010 regarding an amendment called “Save our State Amendment”, which was to
be made to the Oklahoma Constitution. This amendment was created with the intent of preventing
courts within the state from both considering as well as using the Sharia Law during cases. If all
went accordingly, the amendment would have gone through certification by the Oklahoma Election
Board seven days later and would have been included within the Oklahoma State constitution. Two
days after the voters approved the amendment, Muneer Awad brought charges against individuals
on the Election Board in an effort to avoid certifying the results of the election. Paul Ziriax was the
Agency head on the Oklahoma Election Board and therefore the suit was stated in his name. Awad
was an avid Muslamic follower and also the executive director of the Oklahoma Chapter of the
Council on American-Islamic Relations. Awad that he was suing because he felt as though his rights
under the Establishment as well as the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment of the United
States Constitution were violated by the Save our State Amendment which was now approved. He
claimed that implementation of the amendment would cause multiple adverse consequences, such
as stigmatizing individuals who practice the Muslim faith, inhibiting the practice of Islam, disabling a
court from probating his last will and testament (which contained references to Sharia law), limiting
the relief Muslims can obtain from Oklahoma state courts, and fostering excessive entanglement
between the government and his
, Awad v. Ziriax 2
religion (Bagley, C. E. Managers and the Legal Environment: Strategies for Business.)
Awad received approval from the district court and was granted a preliminary
injunction which would cease the certification process for the amendment however
upon the approval, the members of the Oklahoma Election Board filed for an appeal.
Identify the parties and explain each party’s position
The plaintiff, Muneer Awad, was suing the Oklahoma Election Board Oklahoma Election
Board in an effort to stop the process of certification of votes received from the election
regarding the Save our State Amendment. Awad stated that the amendment was in violation of
the rights he was entitled to under the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses of the First
Amendment of the United States Constitution. Awad received a preliminary junction
from the district court. The defendant, Oklahoma Election Board, brought forward an
appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit suggesting that the
claims made by the plaintiff were not justiciable and did not meet the requirement for
the case to be considered at a preliminary injunction.
Outline the case’s procedural history including any appeals
The proceeding started on November 4th when Awad brought charges against the
Oklahoma Election Board in an effort to stop the certification of the votes for the Save our State
Amendment. On November 9th, the Oklahoma District Court agreed to approve a temporary
restraining order on the certification process. The court then held an evidentiary hearing on
November 22nd to discuss the request made by Awad for a preliminary injunction to which was
granted approximately one week later. On December 1, the Oklahoma Election Board filed an
appeal, within an appropriate time frame, against the grant of the preliminary injunction. On
C12 - Business Law
Case Analysis 4
Awad v. Ziriax
Summarize the facts of the case
Approval was received after gaining a majority of votes from Oklahoma residents on
November 2nd, 2010 regarding an amendment called “Save our State Amendment”, which was to
be made to the Oklahoma Constitution. This amendment was created with the intent of preventing
courts within the state from both considering as well as using the Sharia Law during cases. If all
went accordingly, the amendment would have gone through certification by the Oklahoma Election
Board seven days later and would have been included within the Oklahoma State constitution. Two
days after the voters approved the amendment, Muneer Awad brought charges against individuals
on the Election Board in an effort to avoid certifying the results of the election. Paul Ziriax was the
Agency head on the Oklahoma Election Board and therefore the suit was stated in his name. Awad
was an avid Muslamic follower and also the executive director of the Oklahoma Chapter of the
Council on American-Islamic Relations. Awad that he was suing because he felt as though his rights
under the Establishment as well as the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment of the United
States Constitution were violated by the Save our State Amendment which was now approved. He
claimed that implementation of the amendment would cause multiple adverse consequences, such
as stigmatizing individuals who practice the Muslim faith, inhibiting the practice of Islam, disabling a
court from probating his last will and testament (which contained references to Sharia law), limiting
the relief Muslims can obtain from Oklahoma state courts, and fostering excessive entanglement
between the government and his
, Awad v. Ziriax 2
religion (Bagley, C. E. Managers and the Legal Environment: Strategies for Business.)
Awad received approval from the district court and was granted a preliminary
injunction which would cease the certification process for the amendment however
upon the approval, the members of the Oklahoma Election Board filed for an appeal.
Identify the parties and explain each party’s position
The plaintiff, Muneer Awad, was suing the Oklahoma Election Board Oklahoma Election
Board in an effort to stop the process of certification of votes received from the election
regarding the Save our State Amendment. Awad stated that the amendment was in violation of
the rights he was entitled to under the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses of the First
Amendment of the United States Constitution. Awad received a preliminary junction
from the district court. The defendant, Oklahoma Election Board, brought forward an
appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit suggesting that the
claims made by the plaintiff were not justiciable and did not meet the requirement for
the case to be considered at a preliminary injunction.
Outline the case’s procedural history including any appeals
The proceeding started on November 4th when Awad brought charges against the
Oklahoma Election Board in an effort to stop the certification of the votes for the Save our State
Amendment. On November 9th, the Oklahoma District Court agreed to approve a temporary
restraining order on the certification process. The court then held an evidentiary hearing on
November 22nd to discuss the request made by Awad for a preliminary injunction to which was
granted approximately one week later. On December 1, the Oklahoma Election Board filed an
appeal, within an appropriate time frame, against the grant of the preliminary injunction. On
