More than 25 people testified at a Senate Judiciary hearing Tuesday in favor of a bill that would ban the application of foreign law in state courts.
While Senate Bill 97 doesn’t specifically mention Islamic sharia law, proponents repeatedly expressed fears that immigrants and refugees coming to the United States would eventually demand sharia law supersede the constitutions of the United States and Montana.
Opponents said the bill doesn’t accomplish anything other than furthering an anti-Muslim sentiment.
Similar legislation has been enacted in nine states and is currently up for debate in several others.
Sharia law is the religious governance followed by people practicing Islam. Sharia utilizes religious texts to determine divine will. Its implementation varies across the world, with Saudi Arabia adhering to strict punishments like stoning, while in other countries it is most regularly used in personal law such as marriage and divorce.
Proponents expressed concern that people practicing Islam would be allowed to abuse women or marry minors in the United States or Montana. Though they were not able to reference a case in which sharia law superseded U.S. law, American courts do consider provisions of Sharia law, Jewish law or canon law as long as they don’t violate the Constitution.
A 2009 case in New Jersey has been referenced in states where legislators introduced a ban on the application of foreign law. In this case, a judge didn’t grant a protective order to a woman abused by her Muslim husband after it was found he was following his beliefs. That decision was later reversed and scrutinized by legal scholars.
Sen. Keith Regier, R-Kalispell, said he was carrying the bill to protect the fundamental liberties of all Americans. He said he’d received more than 150 letters and emails from proponents of the bill and about five from opponents since introducing the legislation.
Many of the proponents were residents in Regier’s district and the surrounding area. Several had a military or law enforcement background. One proponent called anyone who objected to the bill un-American.
Some proponents took issue with the idea of practicing Islam and people who don’t assimilate to a specific aspect of American culture. Sandy Bradford, a Helena resident, said Islam is not peaceful and is an enemy to all. Sandy Montgomery, from the Flathead, said the bill was long overdue.
“We have allowed legal immigrants, illegal immigrants and now refugees to take advantage of our law and culture to take up their own agendas,” Montgomery said. “They have no intention to abide by our laws, nor are they interested in assimilating to our culture.”
Gina Satterfield, a Helena resident, said foreign law is threatening the peace.
“We as a nation and state do not have to wait as a forced host to witness the growing population for this foreign law to implement its totalitarian system,” she said.
William Briggs, who served 47 months in Iraq, said he witnessed the punishment for violating foreign law, which still haunts him.
Some in the crowd voiced opposition to a comment made by SK Rossi, director of advocacy and public policy for ACLU Montana, who said the fears expressed at the hearing were unfounded. Rossi emphasized that sharia law has not been prioritized by any court, and that an Oklahoma law specifically mentioning banning sharia law was found unconstitutional.
“We need to start trusting our judicial system to apply the correct law,” Rossi said.
Rachel Carroll Rivas, director of the Montana Human Rights Network, said the bill is sold as a commitment to constitutional rights, but instead targets the Islamic faith.
“These tactics are meant to divide, not unite our country,” she said. “The effort is not solving a problem but is based on an out-of-state model of policy that is a direct reaction to Islamophobia.”
The Montana Coalition Against Domestic and Sexual Violence and the Montana Association of Christians also spoke against the bill.