Chat with us, powered by LiveChat

24/7 Support


Assignment Help

ACCOUNTING 1309-Case Analysis 4-Awad v/s Ziriax

Jul 28, 2023

    Assignment Instructions

    Awad v. Ziriax

    Be sure to save an electronic copy of your answers before submitting it to Ashworth College for grading.  Unless otherwise stated, you should answer in complete sentences, and be sure to use correct English, spelling, and grammar.  Sources must be cited in APA format.

    Your response should be a minimum of four (4) double-spaced pages; refer to the Length and Formatting instructions below for additional details.

    In complete sentences respond to the following prompts:

    • Summarize the facts of the case;
    • Identify the parties and explain each party’s position;
    • Outline the case’s procedural history including any appeals;
    • What is the legal issue in question in this case?
    • How did the court rule on the legal issue of this case?
    • What facts did the court find to be most important in making its decision?
    • Respond to the following questions:
      • Can a U.S. court enforce a clause in a contract specifying that Sharia law will apply?
      • When, if ever, should a national court look to decisions of courts in other nations when interpreting its own nation’s constitution?
    • Do you agree or disagree with the court’s decision? If you disagree, provide an explanation of your reasoning.

    Case Analysis 4: Awad v/s Ziriax

    Summarization of the facts of the case

    This case under the First Amendment is based on speech and religious freedom under the 10th circuit. The facts in order to summarise the case mainly focus on the Oklahoma voters, under the United States Court Appeals that held up their voters as approved in the Amendment based on the Oklahoma Constitution, forbidding the state court while considering the Sharia law. While this has been focused that while making this judicial decision, that perhaps been violated the First Amendment under the United States Constitution. Therefore, the Court is most likely to state that the Constitutional Amendment has violated the Establishment Clause.

    Therefore, plaintiff Muneer Awad sued a claim based on the Amendment which has actually stigmatized him, while preventing him from the probation that contained the references that deals with the Sharia Law. Apart from this, Muneer Awad mainly sued based on the Election Board in order to prevent the certification based on the ballot title under “SQ 755”, based on the election that took place by November 2010. Thus, here the plaintiff is a resident of America and is one of the executive directors of the Oklahoma Chapter of the Council on the American-Islamic Relations. Therefore, the district has been granting a preliminary injunction based on the appellate court in order to uphold the injunction based on the grounds of discrimination formed on the religious basis, as it is specially mentioned in Sharia Law ( 2012). Thus, plaintiff Awad mentioned the SQ 755 violation, based on violating the rights with both the Establishment and Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment.    

    The parties and party’s position

    The parties were, one is the Plaintiff, named Muneer Awad is a citizen of America, as he resides in Oklahoma. He is the executive director of the Oklahoma Chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations. As compared with this, the defendants are Paul Ziriax, who is the agency head of the Oklahoma State Board of Elections. Thomas Prince, the Chairman of the Board, Oklahoma State Board of Election, Steve Curry, Board Member, of the Oklahoma State Board of Election, and another party was Jim Roth, the Board Member, of the Oklahoma State Board of Election, where the defendant- the Appellants.    

    The case’s procedural history

    Thus, this case appeared after two days of the election. Muneer Awad, a Muslim citizen of the United States, residing in Oklahoma, has sued a claim against the State Election Board. Here, in the procedural history, which mainly focuses on the formation of the preliminary injunction that prevented the certification of the election as a result of the SQ 755. Thus, this prelude is based on the Oklahoma legislature, from amending based on the state constitution in order to prevent the state court while considering an International as well as Sharia law in terms of determinations (Brougher 2011).

    Apart from this, Awad claimed about the proposed Amendment, has violated his Constitutional Rights on the grounds of religious discrimination, under the First Amendment, with the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses under two reasons. The two reasons are as follows; which is based on the negativity in order to identify his religion especially, next it is hindered by the practicing Islam while preventing Oklahoma courts from probating the will, enclosed with the references of the Sharia Law while providing an inadequate relief based on the judicial system which is inaugurated for the Muslims. Therefore, this district court essentially developed as well as granted a preliminary injunction that deals with an injunction, based on the Oklahoma State Election Board appealed to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals under the Tenth Circuit.

    The legal issue in this case

    The legal question which was asked by the plaintiff, Muneer Awad was mainly based on the Clauses of the First Amendment. As per the United States Constitution, the First Amendment, guarantees to all United States citizens their right to speak along with their religion, so people from Islam religion has the right to vote, and as per the certiorari writ by Awad, can be considered a right, that his Constitutional Rights have been violated under the First Amendment Establishment or Free Exercise claims (Brougher 2011).  

    Court’s rule on the legal issue of this case

    As per the plaintiff’s immediate action to the filed case, the main challenges about the constitutionality of the State Question 755’s of the Oklahoma Constitution.  This is mainly done as a per of the consideration made on the Sharia Law which is violated due to the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause. Thus, as per Awad’s pursuant made towards the Federal Rule of the Civil Procedure, 65 that moves forward to the court based on the preliminary injunction that enjoined the defendant from certifying, into the election. The Supreme Court of Oklahoma mainly interprets the state constitutional meaning, which reads different parts together, as the First Amendment gives out the liability that influences the substantive right of the Islamic people.  

    Thus, the legal rule of the court based on the case, mainly helped the Appellate Court to determine the Petitioner’s assertions based on the kind of direct injury in fact. Thus, this helps to create a necessary rule under the First Amendment Establishment Clause to give proper importance to Islamic-American citizen and their voting rights (Sheeder 2012).

    Facts the court finds the most important while making a decision

    The most significant part which is found by the court in order to take up such a decision is because of the determination made by the petitioner. As the plaintiff, Muneer Awad sued the claim on a valid note and made a writ on his violating his Human Rights, as the Tenth Circuit is reviewed to be abused by the court based on the discretion, that granted a preliminary injunction in order to prevent the Board to certify the result. Specifically, the Appellate Court made the decision, because based on the Amendment which certified, the imminent injury which was not conjectural or hypothetical. Apart from this, the appellate court even found out from the Amendment about the violation of the Rights under the Establishment Clause and Free Exercise claims that mainly focus on no discrimination among any religions. Thus, after the arrival of the Awad, the court gave the decision that these sorts of cases are subjected to strict scrutiny.

    S. court enforces a clause in a contract that specifies the Sharia law application

    People have a contract based on binding arbitration based on the agreements made under Islamic law, based on the contracts based on the wills that can be enforced by secularism, under the American Court. Specifically, in the case of Sharia Law, which is often applied to religious law, that governs on the principles of spiritual, mental, and physical behavior, which is often followed by the Muslim community people (Islamic law. blog 2018).

    Decisions of courts in other nations

    The decision of the court shall give out a decision that should be based on the ideologies of secular constant. Thus, the case of Awad v/s Ziriax develops a glimpse of discrimination on racial grounds in the case of voting rights for Islamic-American citizens. Thus, they are required to be strictly scrutinized before the First Amendment before, creating any discrimination (Islamic 2018). Therefore, strict interpretation shall be followed and interpreted even in other nations.

    Agree or disagree with the court’s decision

    I agree with the decision made by the court, because, Awad sued a claim, based on granting a preliminary injunction, as asked by the members of the State Election Board under the Tenth Circuit review with Federal District Court, which is abused by the discretion that prevented the Board to certify the result. Thus, reports which are measured under the First Amendment signify to help the voters to vote based on secularism, because the First Amendment which gives the right to speech and religious freedom. The appellate court and its ideas helped to develop the decision under the proposed amendment, to stop discrimination on the grounds of a religious basis, under the Oklahoma Constitution that forbids the state courts, under the Sharia Law. Therefore, Sharia Law, has significance among Muslims, because, it often helps them to acknowledge their own rights. Thus, I agree with the judicial decision taken up by the court, based on violating the First Amendment rights of Awad, under the Constitution of the United States. Perhaps, after this case, the court has relied on strict scrutiny and secular voting accelerations.   


    Brougher, C. (2011, May). Application of religious law in US courts: selected legal issues. Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress. (2018). Islamic Law in U.S. Courts: Awad v. Ziriax (10th Cir. 2012): Anti-Sharīʿa Amendment to State Constitution. Islamic Law Blog. Retrieved from [Retrieved on December 27th, 2021] (2012). Awad v. Ziriax, et al, No. 10-6273 (10th Cir. 2012). Retrieved from [Retrieved on December 25, 2021]

    Sheeder, R. (2012). Awad v. Ziriax: The Tenth Circuit’s Defense against the Power of Religious Majority Factions. Denv. UL Rev.90, 801.

    Stuck on Any Question

    Our best expert will help you with the answer of your question with best explanation.