Gavel to Gavel » Jurisdiction

Bans on court use of sharia/international law: Killed in Alabama, legislatively approved in Kansas, withdrawn in New Jersey, sent to study committee in New Hampshire

Bill Raftery — Mon, 14 May 2012 13:52:05 +0000

With most legislatures now out of session, the last month saw little activity on legislation dealing with bans on court use of sharia/international law, but what there was was all in the last week:

May 7: Kansas’ House approves unanimously (120-0) SB 79 as amended by the House, a statute to ban the use of foreign or international law.

May 8: New Hampshire’s Senate Judiciary Committee recommended referring that state’s version (HB 1422) to an interim summer study.

May 9: Alabama’s Senate voted to indefinitely postpone and effective kill proposed constitutional amendment SB 84.

May 10: New Jersey’s AB 919, which the author had previously noted would be withdrawn, was formally removed from the legislature.

May 11: Kansas’ Senate approved SB 79 on a 33-3 vote. Proponents went out of their way during the debate to note the word “sharia” was not included in the bill, however news reports indicate that sharia was the focus of the bill when introduced and was specifically mentioned during debate.

Full roster of 41 bills introduced and their statuses after the jump.

Bill	Provisions	Status
Alabama SB 33 (Constitutional Amendment)	Enacts American and Alabama Laws for Alabama Courts Amendment. Provides “A court, arbitrator, administrative agency, or other adjudicative, arbitrative, or enforcement authority shall not apply or enforce a foreign law if doing so would violate any state law or a right guaranteed by the Constitution of this state or of the United States.”	In Senate Committee on Judiciary.
Alabama SB 40 (Constitutional Amendment)	Defines foreign law as “any law, rule, or legal code, or system established, used, or applied in a jurisdiction outside of the states or territories of the United States, or which exist as a separate body of law, legal code, or system adopted or used anywhere by any people, group, or culture different from the Constitution and laws of the United States or the State of Alabama.” Provides “A court, arbitrator, administrative agency, or other adjudicative, arbitrative, or enforcement authority shall not apply or enforce a foreign law if doing so would violate any state law or a right guaranteed by the Constitution of this state or of the United States.”	In Senate Judiciary Committee.
Alabama SB 84 (Constitutional Amendment)	Defines foreign law as “any law, rule, or legal code, or system established, used, or applied in a jurisdiction outside of the states or territories of the United States, or which exist as a separate body of law, legal code, or system adopted or used anywhere by any people, group, or culture different from the Constitution and laws of the United States or the State of Alabama.” Provides “A court, arbitrator, administrative agency, or other adjudicative, arbitrative, or enforcement authority shall not apply or enforce a foreign law if doing so would violate any state law or a right guaranteed by the Constitution of this state or of the United States.”	Indefinitely postponed by full Senate 5/9/12.
Alaska HB 88	Prohibits a court, arbitrator, mediator, administrative agency, or enforcement authority from applying a foreign law if application of the foreign law would violate an individual’s right guaranteed by the Constitution of the State of Alaska or the United States Constitution.	Approved by House State Affairs Committee 3/17/11. Approved by House Judiciary Committee 4/4/11. Carried over from 2011 session.
Florida HB 1209	Provides “foreign law, legal code, or system” means any law, legal code, or system of a jurisdiction outside any state or territory of the United States, including, but not limited to, international organizations or tribunals, and applied by that jurisdiction’s courts, administrative bodies, or other formal or informal tribunals. Provides the term does not include the common law and statute laws of England as described or any laws of the Native American tribes in the state. Declares “Any court, arbitration, tribunal, or administrative agency ruling or decision violates the public policy of this state and is void and unenforceable if the court, arbitration, tribunal, or administrative agency bases its ruling or decision in the matter at issue in whole or in part on any foreign law, legal code, or system that does not grant the parties affected by the ruling or decision the same fundamental liberties, rights, and privileges guaranteed by the State Constitution or the United States Constitution.”	Approved by House Judiciary Committee 2/22/12. Approved by full House 3/1/12. Died in Senate Judiciary Committee when legislature adjourned.
Florida SB 1360	Provides “foreign law, legal code, or system” means any law, legal code, or system of a jurisdiction outside any state or territory of the United States, including, but not limited to, international organizations or tribunals, and applied by that jurisdiction’s courts, administrative bodies, or other formal or informal tribunals. Provides the term does not include the common law and statute laws of England as described or any laws of the Native American tribes in the state. Declares “Any court, arbitration, tribunal, or administrative agency ruling or decision violates the public policy of this state and is void and unenforceable if the court, arbitration, tribunal, or administrative agency bases its ruling or decision in the matter at issue in whole or in part on any foreign law, legal code, or system that does not grant the parties affected by the ruling or decision the same fundamental liberties, rights, and privileges guaranteed by the State Constitution or the United States Constitution.”	Approved by Senate Budget Subcommittee on Criminal and Civil Justice Appropriations 2/28/12. Died on Senate floor when legislature adjourned.
Georgia HB 45	Provides “the term ‘foreign law’ means any law, rule, or legal code or system established and used or applied in a jurisdiction outside of the United States or its territories…A court, arbitrator, administrative agency, or other tribunal shall not enforce a foreign law if doing so would violate a right guaranteed by the Constitution of this state or of the United States.”	In House Committee on Judiciary. Carried over from 2011 session. Died in committee when legislature adjourned.
Georgia HB 242	Declares “‘foreign law’ means any law, rule, or legal code or system established and used or applied in a jurisdiction outside of the United States or its territories…A court, administrative agency, or other tribunal shall not enforce a foreign law if doing so would violate a right guaranteed by the Constitution of this state or of the United States.”	Approved by House Committee on Judiciary Non-Civil 2/24/12. Died on House floor when legislature adjourned.
Georgia SB 51	Provides that no court, arbitrator, administrative agency, or other tribunal shall enforce a foreign law if doing so would violate a right guaranteed by the Constitution of this state or of the United States	In Senate Committee on the Judiciary. Carried over from 2011 session. Died in committee when legislature adjourned.
Georgia SR 926 (Constitutional Amendment)	Describes foreign and religious laws which are incompatible with the laws and policy of the United States and the State of Georgia. Provides ways in which incompatible laws may not be applied or enforced by courts of state.	In Senate Committee on Judiciary. Died in committee when legislature adjourned.
Indiana HB 1166	Provides that a court may not apply, enforce, or grant comity, res judicata, claim preclusion, or issue preclusion to a foreign law, ruling, or judgment if doing so would violate the fundamental liberties, rights, and privileges guaranteed by the United States Constitution or the Constitution of the State of Indiana. Provides that a provision in a contract or agreement: (1) that provides for the choice of foreign laws in its interpretation; or (2) that provides for the choice of venue or forum; and that would result in a violation of a fundamental liberty, right, or privilege guaranteed by the United States Constitution or the Constitution of the State of Indiana is void and unenforceable. Prohibits a court from granting certain motions if the transfer is likely to affect the constitutional rights of the nonmoving party. Provides that a court may not require or authorize any court to: (1) adjudicate or prohibit a religious organization from adjudicating ecclesiastical matters; or (2) determine or interpret the doctrine of a religious organization.	In House Committee on Judiciary. Probably dead; failed to advance to Senate before crossover day.
Indiana SB 36	Prohibits the enforcement of a foreign law (defined as a law established and used outside the jurisdiction of the United States) if the enforcement would violate a right granted by the Indiana or United States Constitution. Provides that a provision in a contract or agreement calling for the application of foreign law is not enforceable and is void if the provision cannot be modified, unless the contract explicitly states that it will be enforced in accordance with foreign law. Prohibits a court from granting certain motions to transfer a case to another jurisdiction if the transfer is likely to affect the constitutional rights of the nonmoving party.	In Senate Committee on Judiciary. Probably dead; failed to advance to House before crossover day.
Indiana SB 90	Prohibits the enforcement of a foreign law (defined as a law established and used outside the jurisdiction of the United States) if the enforcement would violate a right granted by the Indiana or United States Constitution. Provides that a provision in a contract or agreement between natural persons calling for the application of foreign law is not enforceable and is void if the provision cannot be modified. Prohibits a court from granting certain motions to transfer a case to another jurisdiction if the transfer is likely to affect the constitutional rights of the nonmoving party.	In Senate Committee on Judiciary. Probably dead; failed to advance to House before crossover day.
Iowa HB 489	Defines “foreign law, legal code, or system” as “any law, legal code, or system of a jurisdiction outside of any state or territory of the United States, including but not limited to international organizations and tribunals, and applied by that jurisdiction’s courts, administrative bodies, or other formal or informal tribunals.” Provides “It is the public policy of this state that the primary factor which a court, administrative agency, arbitrator, mediator, or other entity or person acting under the authority of state law shall consider in granting comity to a decision rendered under any foreign law, legal code, or system against a person in this state is whether the decision rendered violated any right of the person in this state guaranteed by the Constitution of the State of Iowa, the Constitution of the United States, or any statute enacted or decision issued under the constitution of the state of Iowa or the United States.”	In House Judiciary Committee. Carried over from 2011 session. Probably dead; failed to advance to Senate before crossover day.
Iowa HB 575	Enacts “Iowa Freedom and Sovereignty Act.” Defines “Foreign law” as “any law enacted by a jurisdiction or a governmental or quasi-governmental body other than the federal government or a state of the United States. “Foreign law” includes a religious law, legal code, accord, or ruling promulgated or made by an international organization, tribunal, or formal or informal administrative body.” Provides “any foreign law or other law that is in conflict with the principles of the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution of the United States, or the Constitution of the State of Iowa shall not have force or effect in this state…It is the public policy of this state that the only factor that a court, administrative agency, arbitrator, mediator, or other person acting under authority of this state’s laws shall consider in granting comity to a decision rendered under a foreign law that affects a sovereign citizen of this state is whether the decision violates the sovereign citizen’s rights under the Constitution of the United States or the Constitution of the State of Iowa.”	In House State Government Committee. Carried over from 2011 session. Probably dead; failed to advance to Senate before crossover day.
Iowa HJR 14 (Constitutional Amendment)	Provides the state courts “when exercising judicial power, shall uphold and adhere to the law as provided in the Constitution of the United States, the Constitution of the State of Iowa, the United States Code, federal regulations, established common law, the Iowa Code, the Iowa administrative code, and if necessary the law of another state of the United States provided the law of the other state does not include Sharia law. The courts shall not use the legal precepts of other nations or cultures. Specifically, the courts shall not consider international law or Sharia law. The provisions of this section shall apply to all cases before the respective courts including but not limited to cases of first impression.”	In House Judiciary Committee. Carried over from 2011 session. Probably dead; failed to advance to Senate before crossover day.
Iowa SB 2198	Enacts “Iowa Freedom and Sovereignty Act.” Defines “Foreign law” as “any law enacted by a jurisdiction or a governmental or quasi-governmental body other than the federal government or a state of the United States. “Foreign law” includes a religious law, legal code, accord, or ruling promulgated or made by an international organization, tribunal, or formal or informal administrative body.” Provides “any foreign law or other law that is in conflict with the principles of the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution of the United States, or the Constitution of the State of Iowa shall not have force or effect in this state…It is the public policy of this state that the only factor that a court, administrative agency, arbitrator, mediator, or other person acting under authority of this state’s laws shall consider in granting comity to a decision rendered under a foreign law that affects a sovereign citizen of this state is whether the decision violates the sovereign citizen’s rights under the Constitution of the United States or the Constitution of the State of Iowa.”	In Senate State Government Committee. Probably dead; failed to advance to House before crossover day.
Kansas HB 2087	Defines “foreign law,” “legal code” or “system” means any law, legal code or system of a jurisdiction outside of any state or territory of the United States, including, but not limited to, international organizations and tribunals and applied by that jurisdiction’s courts, administrative bodies or other formal or informal tribunals. Provides “Any court, arbitration, tribunal or administrative agency ruling or decision shall violate the public policy of this state and be void and unenforceable if the court, arbitration, tribunal or administrative agency bases its rulings or decisions in the matter at issue in whole or in part on any law, legal code or system that would not grant the parties affected by the ruling or decision the same fundamental liberties, rights and privileges granted under the United States and Kansas constitutions.”	Approved by full House 3/30/11. In Senate Committee on Judiciary. Carried over from 2011 session. Replaced with unrelated amendment text 5/10/11.
Kansas SB 79	ORIGINAL: Amends the state debt setoff law to provide that the collection assistance fee for all debts owed to a court shall be paid by the debtor as an additional cost, rather than deducted from the debts owed to a court. AS HOUSE AMENDED: Defines “foreign law,” “legal code” or “system” means any law, legal code or system of a jurisdiction outside of any state or territory of the United States, including, but not limited to, international organizations and tribunals and applied by that jurisdiction’s courts, administrative bodies or other formal or informal tribunals. Provides “Any court, arbitration, tribunal or administrative agency ruling or decision shall violate the public policy of this state and be void and unenforceable if the court, arbitration, tribunal or administrative agency bases its rulings or decisions in the matter at issue in whole or in part on any law, legal code or system that would not grant the parties affected by the ruling or decision the same fundamental liberties, rights and privileges granted under the United States and Kansas constitutions.”	Approved by full House 5/7/12. Approved by full Senate 5/11/12. To Governor for approval.
Kentucky HB 386	Establishes legislative intent that the rights of an individual afforded under the Constitutions of the Commonwealth and the United States take precedence over the application of any foreign law in any judicial or quasi-judicial proceeding. Strictly construe waivers of constitutional rights Provides exceptions for corporate entities Prohibits choice of venue outside of the Commonwealth or United States to preserve the constitutional rights of the person against whom enforcement is sought.	In House Judiciary Committee. Died in committee when legislature adjourned.
Michigan HB 4769	Defines “foreign law,” as “any law, legal code, or system of a jurisdiction outside of any state or territory of the United States, including, but not limited to, international organizations and tribunals, and applied by that jurisdiction’s courts, administrative bodies, or other formal or informal tribunals.” Provides “A court, arbitrator, administrative agency, or other adjudicative, mediation, or enforcement authority shall not enforce a foreign law if doing so would violate a right guaranteed by the constitution of this state or of the United States.”	In House Committee on Judiciary.
Michigan SB 701	Defines “foreign law,” as “any law, legal code, or system of a jurisdiction outside of any state or territory of the United States, including, but not limited to, international organizations and tribunals, and applied by that jurisdiction’s courts, administrative bodies, or other formal or informal tribunals.” Provides “A court, arbitrator, administrative agency, or other adjudicative, mediation, or enforcement authority shall not enforce a foreign law if doing so would violate a right guaranteed by the constitution of this state or of the United States.”	In Senate Committee on Government Operations.
Minnesota SB 2281	Provides “A court, arbitration, tribunal, or administrative agency ruling or decision violates the public policy of this state and is void and unenforceable if the court, arbitration, tribunal, or administrative agency bases its rulings or decisions in the matter at issue in whole or in part on a law, legal code, or system that would not grant the parties affected by the ruling or decision the same fundamental liberties, rights, and privileges granted under the Minnesota Constitution and the United States Constitution, including but not limited to due process, freedom of religion, speech, or press, and any right of privacy or marriage as specifically defined by the Minnesota Constitution.”	Withdrawn by author 3/5/12.
Mississippi HB 2	Provides “”Foreign law” means any law, rule, or legal code or system established and used or applied in a jurisdiction outside of the states or territories of the United States…A court, arbitrator, administrative agency, or other adjudicative, mediation, or enforcement authority shall not enforce a foreign law if doing so would violate a right guaranteed by the Constitution of this state or of the United States.”	In House Judiciary A Committee. Dead; failed to advance out of committee before deadline.
Mississippi HB 698	Prohibit use of international or Sharia law by state’s judiciary.	In House Judiciary A Committee. Dead; failed to advance out of committee before deadline.
Missouri HB 1512	Provides court, arbitration, tribunal, or administrative agency ruling or decision shall violate the public policy of this state and be void and unenforceable if the court, arbitration, tribunal, or administrative agency bases its rulings or decisions in the matter at issue in whole or in part on any foreign law, legal code, or system that would not grant the parties affected by the ruling or decision the same fundamental liberties, rights, and privileges granted under the United States and Missouri constitutions, including, but not limited to, due process, freedom of religion, speech, or press, and any right of privacy or marriage as specifically defined by the constitution of this state.	Approved by full House 3/29/12.
Missouri SB 676	Mandates that any court, arbitration, tribunal, or administrative agency ruling shall be unenforceable if based on a foreign law that does not grant the parties the same rights as the parties have under the United States and Missouri constitutions.	Approved by Senate General Laws Committee 2/28/12.
Nebraska LB 647	Declares a court, arbitration, tribunal, or administrative agency ruling or decision shall violate the public policy of this state and be void and unenforceable if the court, arbitration, tribunal, or administrative agency bases its rulings on any foreign law, legal code, or system that would not grant the parties affected by the ruling or decisions the same fundamental liberties, rights, and privileges granted under the United States Constitution and the Constitution of Nebraska.	In Senate Judiciary Committee. Carried over from 2011 session. Died in committee when legislature adjourned.
New Hampshire HB 1422	Declares that no New Hampshire court shall enforce foreign law or a state law enforcing foreign law if such enforcement violates an individual’s or corporation’s rights under the New Hampshire constitution or the United States Constitution.	Referred to Interim Study by Senate Judiciary Committee 5/8/12.
New Jersey AB 919	Provides that a foreign law may only be recognized by a court in New Jersey if it does not violate any right guaranteed by the Constitution of this State or of the United States of America.	Formally withdrawn by author 5/10/12.
New Mexico SJR 14 (Constitutional Amendment)	Provides “The courts provided for in this article, when exercising their judicial authority, shall uphold and adhere to the law as provided in the United States constitution, the constitution of New Mexico, statutes of the United States and federal regulations adopted pursuant thereto, established common law, New Mexico statutes and state regulations adopted pursuant thereto and, if necessary, the law of another state of the United States, provided that the law of the other state does not include Sharia law. The courts shall not consider or apply a rule of comity to the legal precepts of other nations or cultures, international law, laws promulgated by foreign governments or national laws of foreign countries if the consideration or application of the foreign precepts or laws would violate the public policy of the state of New Mexico or reduce or impair the rights of any resident of the state of New Mexico existing under New Mexico statutes or common law governing child custody, rights of married persons, property rights, protection from domestic violence or any criminal law. The courts shall not consider or apply Sharia law. The provisions of this section shall apply to all cases before the respective courts, including, but not limited to, cases of first impression.”	In Senate Rules Committee. Died when legislature adjourned.
North Carolina HB 640	Declares “it to be the public policy of this State to protect its citizens from the application of foreign law that would result in the violation of a right of a natural person guaranteed by the North Carolina Constitution or the United States Constitution. The public policies expressed in this section shall apply only to actual or foreseeable violations of a constitutional right resulting from the application of the foreign law.”	In House Committee on Judiciary Subcommittee C. Carried over from 2011 session.
Oklahoma HB 1552	Provides any court, arbitration, tribunal, or administrative agency ruling or decision shall violate the public policy of this state and be void and unenforceable if the court, arbitration, tribunal, or administrative agency bases its rulings or decisions in the matter at issue in whole or in part on any law, rule, legal code or system that would not grant the parties affected by the ruling or decision the same fundamental liberties, rights, and privileges granted under the United States and Oklahoma Constitutions.	Approved by full House 3/17/11. In Senate Rules Committee. Carried over from 2011 session.
Pennsylvania HB 2029	Provides a tribunal shall not consider a foreign legal code or system which does not grant the parties affected by the ruling or decision the same fundamental liberties, rights and privileges granted under the United States Constitution and the Constitution of Pennsylvania.	In House Judiciary Committee. Carried over from 2011 session.
South Carolina HB 3490	Provides “As used in this section, the term “foreign law” means any law, rule, or legal code or system established and used or applied in or by another jurisdiction outside of the United States or its territories…A court, arbitrator, administrative agency, or other adjudicative, mediation, or enforcement authority may not enforce a foreign law if it would violate a constitutionally guaranteed right of this State or of the United States. The provisions of this section apply only to actual or foreseeable violations of the constitutional rights of a person caused by the application of the foreign law.”	In House Judiciary Committee. Carried over from 2011 session.
South Carolina SB 444	Provides “As used in this section, the term ‘foreign law’ means any law, rule, or legal code or system established and used or applied in or by another jurisdiction outside of the United States or its territories….A court, arbitrator, administrative agency, or other adjudicative, mediation, or enforcement authority may not enforce a foreign law if it would violate a constitutionally guaranteed right of this State or of the United States. The provisions of this section apply only to actual or foreseeable violations of the constitutional rights of a person caused by the application of the foreign law.”	In Senate Judiciary Committee. Carried over from 2011 session.
South Dakota HB 1253	ORIGINAL: “No court, arbitrator, administrative agency, or other adjudicative mediation or enforcement authority may render any judgment predicated on any religious code or enforce any provisions of any religious code.” AS AMENDED: “No court, administrative agency, or other governmental agency may enforce any provisions of any religious code.”	Signed into law by Governor 3/12/12.
South Dakota SB 136	ORIGINAL: Provides any ruling or decision that makes use of international or foreign law is void and unenforceable if the court bases its ruling or decision in the matter at issue in whole or in part on any foreign law, legal code, or system that would not grant the parties affected by the ruling or decision the same fundamental liberties, rights, and privileges granted under the constitutions of the United States and South Dakota, including due process of law, freedom of religion, speech, or press, and any right of privacy or marriage as specifically provided by the constitution of this state. Foreign law, legal code, or system is any foreign law, legal code, or system of a jurisdiction outside of any state or territory of the United States, including international organizations and tribunals, and applied by that jurisdiction’s courts, administrative bodies, or other formal or informal tribunals. Specifies the term foreign law does not include any tribal laws of the Native American tribes in the state. AS AMENDED: “No court, arbitrator, administrative agency, or other adjudicative mediation or enforcement authority may render any judgment predicated on any religious code or enforce any provisions of any religious code.”	Deferred to 41st day (i.e. killed) by Senate Judiciary Committee 2/2/12.
Virginia HB 631	Provides that court decisions and contracts and other agreements will be void as violative of the public policy of the Commonwealth where such decisions or contracts are based on foreign law, i.e., law applied in a jurisdiction outside of the United States, where the application of such foreign law would violate a person’s rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution or the Constitution of Virginia.	Continued to 2013 by House Committee for Courts of Justice 2/10/12.
Virginia HB 825	Prohibits any Virginia court or administrative agency from applying the law of any jurisdiction outside of the United States and its territories unless the application is required by the United States Constitution, the Constitution of Virginia, or any federal or state law.	Approved by House Committee for Courts of Justice 2/3/12. Continued to 2013 by House Committee for Courts of Justice 2/10/12.
West Virginia HB 3220	Provides “”foreign law, legal code or system” means any law, legal code, or system of a jurisdiction outside of any state or territory of the United States, including, but not limited to, international organizations and tribunals, and applied by that jurisdiction’s courts, administrative bodies, or other formal or informal tribunals…It is the public policy of this state that the primary factor which a court, administrative agency, arbitrator, mediator or other entity or person acting under the authority of state law shall consider in granting comity to a decision rendered under any foreign law, legal code or system against a natural person in this state is whether the decision rendered either violated or would violate any right of the natural person in this state guaranteed by the Constitution of the State of West Virginia or the United States Constitution or any statute or decision under those Constitutions.”	In House Judiciary Committee. Carried over from 2011 session. Died when legislature adjourned.

Missouri and other state legislatures consider compelling state courts to ignore Affordable Care Act, prosecute judges and federal officials who enforce

Bill Raftery — Fri, 11 May 2012 16:12:13 +0000

There’s been a great deal of state legislative activity in the last 2 years to voice opposition to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. While the federal courts, and currently the U.S. Supreme Court, have contended with the constitutionality of the subject, state legislatures have issued resolutions in opposition and/or adopted laws prohibiting state agencies from participating in implementation.

Several states, most notably Missouri, have taken this a step further and considered prosecuting in state court federal and state officials for implementing the law. Moreover, the bills would direct state courts to ignore its provisions of the federal law. The one that has advanced the furthest is Missouri’s HB 1534 of 2012. It was approved by the full House (108-44) and apparently by a Senate committee and could be voted on shortly by the full Senate.

HB 1534:

declares the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act void in Missouri
provides for criminal prosecution in state court for federal officials who enforce the law
provides for criminal prosecution in state court for any “public officer or employee”, including the state’s judges, that would enforce the statute
provides for a civil action against state or federal officials that attempt to enforce the law

A full list of all such bills below the jump

Year	Bill	Criminal penalty for state judge?	Criminal penalty for federal official?	Commence civil suit in state court against state/federal officials?	Result	Notes
2011	Idaho HB 117	N	N	Y, injunctive relief.	Approved by full House on 49-20-1 vote. Died in Senate committee.	Prohibited state courts from enforcing federal levies resulting from PPACA.
2011	Idaho HB 59	N	N	Y	Died in House State Affairs Committee.
2011	Maine HB 51	Y	Y	Y	Unanimously rejected by Joint Judiciary Committee 4/7/11.
2011	Maine HB 924	Y	Y	Y	Rejected by Joint Committee on Insurance and Financial Services 5/31/11. Rejected by full House 6/1/11 on 122-21 vote.
2011	Minnesota HB 1351	N	N	Y, injunctive relief.	Died in House Health and Human Services Reform Committee.
2011	Missouri HB 1010	Y	Y	Y	Died in House General Laws Committee.
2011	Montana HJR 20	N	N	N	Approved by House Human Services Committee on 9-6 vote on 2/21/11. Rejected by full House on 46-52 vote on 2/24/11.	Declared ACA “cannot be implemented or enforced in the state of Montana.”
2011	Montana SB 161	Y	Y	Y	Died in Senate Public Health, Welfare and Safety Committee.
2011	New Jersey AB 4155	Y	Y	Y	Died in Assembly Health and Senior Services Committee.
2011	North Dakota SB 2309 (AS INTRODUCED)	Y	Y	Y	Provisions amended out by Senate Human Services Committee 2/17/11.
2011	Nebraska LB 515	Y	Y	Y	Died in Senate Public Health, Welfare and Safety Committee.
2011	Oklahoma HB 1276 (AS INTRODUCED)	Y	Y	Y	Provisions amended out by House Judiciary Committee 2/8/11.
2011	Oregon SB 498	Y	Y	Y	Died in Senate Health Care, Human Services and Rural Health Policy Committee.
2011	South Dakota HB 1165	Y	Y	Y	Rejected by House State Affairs Committee on 13-0 vote 1/25/11.
2011	Texas HB 297	Y	Y	Y	Died in House Select Committee on State Sovereignty.
2011	Wyoming HB 35	Y	Y	Y	Approved by full House 44-14 on 2/1/11. Died in Senate committee.
2012	Arizona HB 2725	Y	Y	Y	Died in House Health and Human Services Committee.
2012	Arizona SB 1475	Y	Y	Y	Died in Senate Healthcare and Medical Liability Reform Committee.
2012	Missouri HB 1534	Y	Y	Y	Approved by full House 108-44 on 4/19/12. Currently pending before Senate General Laws Committee.
2012	New Jersey AB 861	Y	Y	Y	Pending in Assembly Health and Senior Services Committee.

Alabama Senate and Delaware House consider asking their supreme courts for advisory opinions

Bill Raftery — Wed, 09 May 2012 20:32:48 +0000

As I noted last year in Gavel to Gavel publication, legislatures in 10 states are permitted to ask their supreme court for an advisory opinion on a given legal issue or particular bill. Two states appear poised to exercise that option this year.

The first is Alabama’s SR 86 and asks specifically as to the constitutionality of a piece of legislation being considered (SB 563 of 2012):

WHEREAS, there is now pending in the Legislature Senate Bill 563 which provides and directs the appropriation and distribution of funds received by Jackson County as its portion of the in-lieu-of tax payments received by the State of Alabama from the Tennessee Valley Authority and which specifically provides in part for a portion of the fund to be appropriated to the Jackson County Discretionary Board consisting of the Chair of the Jackson County Commission, the senator, and two representatives, respectively, that are legislators representing all or part of Jackson County…

The resolution asks the court whether the bill violates the state’s constitution in any one of three ways: separation of powers (Article III, Sections 42 and 43), payment of public funds (Article IV, Section 72), or enactment of local laws (Article IV, Section 105).

The resolution was reported out of the Senate Rules Committee yesterday. Under state law, the House or Senate may separately ask for an advisory opinion, thus only Senate approval is required here.

Delaware’s HCR 42 deals not with a particular piece of current legislation but on a legal situation. According to the resolution, the sheriff of Sussex County is claiming the power to make arrests as “a Conservator of the Peace.” The Office of Attorney General has twice issued opinions concluding sheriffs may not make arrests, but adding most recently that the legislature should clear the matter up. HCR 42 poses the question of “whether or not the county sheriffs and their deputies have the authority to arrest under any provision in the Constitution of this State.”

Unlike in Alabama, Delaware’s statutes require both House and Senate approval of the resolution before it may be submitted to the Supreme Court.

Missouri activity: changes to merit selection pass House committee, bill prohibiting state courts from enforcing Affordable Care Act up for hearing

Bill Raftery — Tue, 08 May 2012 13:20:34 +0000

Yesterday, the Missouri House Special Standing Committee on Judicial Reform approved SJR 51. As previously noted, this constitutional amendment would:

Increase the number of individuals that the Appellate Judicial Commission nominates for vacancies in the Supreme Court or Court of Appeals from three to four
Replace the Supreme Court member who currently serves as commission chair with additional person chosen by Governor
Allows Supreme Court to appoint a former Supreme Court or Court of Appeals judge to serve as a nonvoting member of the commission if the former judge has not been removed for cause or failed to be retained in a retention election
Provides members appointed by the Governor no longer must be non-bar members
Provides appointed members will serve terms of four years, staggered so that a Governor will appoint two when taking office and two during the middle of his or her term.

That bill is now before the House Rules Committee, which next meets today (May 8th) at 4 PM.

The other piece of activity of note is HB 1534. This bill would prohibit judges and other public officers/employees from enforcing federal Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. It further declares any U.S. government employee who attempts to enforce law is guilty of class A misdemeanor. It was approved by the full House April 19 and is set for a hearing before the Senate General Laws Committee on tomorrow May 9.

Arizona Governor vetoes increase to small claims jursidiction limit; override seems unlikely

Bill Raftery — Wed, 18 Apr 2012 19:13:45 +0000

In many states, efforts to increase small claims limits take years of introduction and re-introduction before actual passage. Arizona’s effort (SB 1310) took only one year to be adopted, but has now run smack into a gubernatorial veto.

SB 1310 would have increased the small claims of justice of the peace courts from $2,500 to $10,000. It was amended down to $5,000 on the Senate floor. The bill’s author noted in committee the history of the proposal: a constituent had sued in small claims court and when the defendant company appeared it did so both with an attorney and a counter-claim large enough to force it into the regular justice of the peace court, requiring that the constituent hire an attorney.

Governor Jan Brewer issued her veto on April 4. In her veto letter, Governor Brewer noted the case, but also noted “Arizona Revised Statute 22-504 allows either party to object to a small claims proceeding and transfer the case to justice court to preserve the right to appeal and there is no monetary threshold a party must meet to transfer the case. This legislation does not solve the stated concern and is contrary to the purpose of the small claims division.”

The bill is now back in the Senate, but it is unclear if there are the votes for an override. The Senate passed the bill 20-10, just barely the 2/3rds (20 out of 30 senators) needed to override. The House passed it 34-22 (4 not voting), less than the 40 (out of 60) needed for an override there.

Missouri looks to compel state judges use original intent interpretation of federal constitution, nullify federal laws & court decisions

Bill Raftery — Mon, 16 Apr 2012 14:11:43 +0000

Just a day after the Chief Justice of the Iowa Supreme Court published an op-ed arguing in favor of a “living constitution”, Missouri’s Senate may be voting to explicitly enshrine in that state’s constitution a rejection of the concept.

SJR 45 is a lengthy amendment that would, among other things:

Prohibits the Missouri legislative, executive, and judicial branches of government from recognizing, enforcing, or acting in furtherance of any federal action that exceeds the powers delegated to the federal government.
Provides the state’s courts shall not recognize, enforce, or act in furtherance of any federal actions that:

restrict the right to bear arms
legalize or fund abortions, or the destruction of any embryo from the zygote stage
require the sale or trade of carbon credits or impose a tax on the release of carbon emissions
involve certain health care issues
mandate the recognition of same sex marriage or civil unions
increase the punishment for a crime based on perpetrator’s thoughts or designate a crime as a hate crime
interpret the establishment clause as creating a wall of separation between church and state
restrict the right of parents or guardians to home school or enroll their children in a private or parochial school or restrict school curriculum.

Requires state courts interpret the U.S. Constitution based on its language and the original intent of the signers of the Constitution. Amendments to the U.S. Constitution shall be interpreted based on their language and the intent of the congressional sponsor and co-sponsors of the amendment.
“Any interpretation of the Constitution based on an emerging awareness, penumbras or shadows of the Constitution, a theory of the Constitution being a “living, breathing document”, or any interpretation that expands federal authority beyond the limited powers enumerated and delegated to the federal government, without an amendment to the Constitution, shall be deemed to exceed the limited powers enumerated and delegated to the federal government.”
Declares that Missouri citizens have standing to enforce the provisions of the amendment in state court.
Provides enforcement of the amendment applies to:

federal actions taken after the amendment is approved by the voters
federal actions specified in the amendment
any federal action, regardless of when it occurred, that the general assembly or the Missouri Supreme Court determines to exceed the powers enumerated and delegated to the federal government by the U.S. Constitution.

This is the third year in a row such a bill has been introduced.

In 2010, HJR 88 was approved by the Missouri House and made it to the Senate floor before dying due to adjournment.

In 2011, HJR 26 made it out of committee and died on the House floor, while the similar SJR 15 met a similar fate on the Senate side.

The 2012 version was approved by the Senate General Laws Committee 4/3/12 and may be voted on as early as today (April 16).

Bans on court use of sharia/international law: Activity in Missouri, Kansas tries to tie to Citizens United

Bill Raftery — Mon, 09 Apr 2012 18:18:33 +0000

This post has been updated, click here.

The last several weeks in the examination bans on court use of sharia/international law have seen two notable pieces of activity.

The first was in Kansas. As noted in the last update SB 79, as originally introduced, had nothing to do with international law or sharia. The House changed the bill entirely, substituting the language of HB 2087 for the original bill. When brought to the full House, a further amendment was offered to, in effect, declare the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United void.

Except as expressly provided by law, no corporation shall be deemed to hold the same rights and privileges possessed by natural persons.

That amendment failed 46-74. The House substitute language was approved March 28 and sent to a House/Senate conference committee.

The second piece of activity was in Missouri. There, HB 1512 (the “Civil Liberties Defense Act”) was approved by full House on March 27. A similar Senate bill was approved in committee in February and could be taken up for a Senate floor vote as early as tomorrow (April 10).

Full roster of 41 bills introduced and their statuses after the jump.

Bill	Provisions	Status
Alabama SB 33 (Constitutional Amendment)	Enacts American and Alabama Laws for Alabama Courts Amendment. Provides “A court, arbitrator, administrative agency, or other adjudicative, arbitrative, or enforcement authority shall not apply or enforce a foreign law if doing so would violate any state law or a right guaranteed by the Constitution of this state or of the United States.”	In Senate Committee on Judiciary.
Alabama SB 40 (Constitutional Amendment)	Defines foreign law as “any law, rule, or legal code, or system established, used, or applied in a jurisdiction outside of the states or territories of the United States, or which exist as a separate body of law, legal code, or system adopted or used anywhere by any people, group, or culture different from the Constitution and laws of the United States or the State of Alabama.” Provides “A court, arbitrator, administrative agency, or other adjudicative, arbitrative, or enforcement authority shall not apply or enforce a foreign law if doing so would violate any state law or a right guaranteed by the Constitution of this state or of the United States.”	In Senate Judiciary Committee.
Alabama SB 84 (Constitutional Amendment)	Defines foreign law as “any law, rule, or legal code, or system established, used, or applied in a jurisdiction outside of the states or territories of the United States, or which exist as a separate body of law, legal code, or system adopted or used anywhere by any people, group, or culture different from the Constitution and laws of the United States or the State of Alabama.” Provides “A court, arbitrator, administrative agency, or other adjudicative, arbitrative, or enforcement authority shall not apply or enforce a foreign law if doing so would violate any state law or a right guaranteed by the Constitution of this state or of the United States.”	Approved by Senate Committee on Judiciary 3/1/12.
Alaska HB 88	Prohibits a court, arbitrator, mediator, administrative agency, or enforcement authority from applying a foreign law if application of the foreign law would violate an individual’s right guaranteed by the Constitution of the State of Alaska or the United States Constitution.	Approved by House State Affairs Committee 3/17/11. Approved by House Judiciary Committee 4/4/11. Carried over from 2011 session.
Florida HB 1209	Provides “foreign law, legal code, or system” means any law, legal code, or system of a jurisdiction outside any state or territory of the United States, including, but not limited to, international organizations or tribunals, and applied by that jurisdiction’s courts, administrative bodies, or other formal or informal tribunals. Provides the term does not include the common law and statute laws of England as described or any laws of the Native American tribes in the state. Declares “Any court, arbitration, tribunal, or administrative agency ruling or decision violates the public policy of this state and is void and unenforceable if the court, arbitration, tribunal, or administrative agency bases its ruling or decision in the matter at issue in whole or in part on any foreign law, legal code, or system that does not grant the parties affected by the ruling or decision the same fundamental liberties, rights, and privileges guaranteed by the State Constitution or the United States Constitution.”	Approved by House Judiciary Committee 2/22/12. Approved by full House 3/1/12. Died in Senate Judiciary Committee when legislature adjourned.
Florida SB 1360	Provides “foreign law, legal code, or system” means any law, legal code, or system of a jurisdiction outside any state or territory of the United States, including, but not limited to, international organizations or tribunals, and applied by that jurisdiction’s courts, administrative bodies, or other formal or informal tribunals. Provides the term does not include the common law and statute laws of England as described or any laws of the Native American tribes in the state. Declares “Any court, arbitration, tribunal, or administrative agency ruling or decision violates the public policy of this state and is void and unenforceable if the court, arbitration, tribunal, or administrative agency bases its ruling or decision in the matter at issue in whole or in part on any foreign law, legal code, or system that does not grant the parties affected by the ruling or decision the same fundamental liberties, rights, and privileges guaranteed by the State Constitution or the United States Constitution.”	Approved by Senate Budget Subcommittee on Criminal and Civil Justice Appropriations 2/28/12. Died on Senate floor when legislature adjourned.
Georgia HB 45	Provides “the term ‘foreign law’ means any law, rule, or legal code or system established and used or applied in a jurisdiction outside of the United States or its territories…A court, arbitrator, administrative agency, or other tribunal shall not enforce a foreign law if doing so would violate a right guaranteed by the Constitution of this state or of the United States.”	In House Committee on Judiciary. Carried over from 2011 session. Died in committee when legislature adjoruned.
Georgia HB 242	Declares “‘foreign law’ means any law, rule, or legal code or system established and used or applied in a jurisdiction outside of the United States or its territories…A court, administrative agency, or other tribunal shall not enforce a foreign law if doing so would violate a right guaranteed by the Constitution of this state or of the United States.”	Approved by House Committee on Judiciary Non-Civil 2/24/12. Died on House floor when legislature adjoruned.
Georgia SB 51	Provides that no court, arbitrator, administrative agency, or other tribunal shall enforce a foreign law if doing so would violate a right guaranteed by the Constitution of this state or of the United States	In Senate Committee on the Judiciary. Carried over from 2011 session. Died in committee when legislature adjoruned.
Georgia SR 926 (Constitutional Amendment)	Describes foreign and religious laws which are incompatible with the laws and policy of the United States and the State of Georgia. Provides ways in which incompatible laws may not be applied or enforced by courts of state.	In Senate Committee on Judiciary. Died in committee when legislature adjoruned.
Indiana HB 1166	Provides that a court may not apply, enforce, or grant comity, res judicata, claim preclusion, or issue preclusion to a foreign law, ruling, or judgment if doing so would violate the fundamental liberties, rights, and privileges guaranteed by the United States Constitution or the Constitution of the State of Indiana. Provides that a provision in a contract or agreement: (1) that provides for the choice of foreign laws in its interpretation; or (2) that provides for the choice of venue or forum; and that would result in a violation of a fundamental liberty, right, or privilege guaranteed by the United States Constitution or the Constitution of the State of Indiana is void and unenforceable. Prohibits a court from granting certain motions if the transfer is likely to affect the constitutional rights of the nonmoving party. Provides that a court may not require or authorize any court to: (1) adjudicate or prohibit a religious organization from adjudicating ecclesiastical matters; or (2) determine or interpret the doctrine of a religious organization.	In House Committee on Judiciary. Probably dead; failed to advance to Senate before crossover day.
Indiana SB 36	Prohibits the enforcement of a foreign law (defined as a law established and used outside the jurisdiction of the United States) if the enforcement would violate a right granted by the Indiana or United States Constitution. Provides that a provision in a contract or agreement calling for the application of foreign law is not enforceable and is void if the provision cannot be modified, unless the contract explicitly states that it will be enforced in accordance with foreign law. Prohibits a court from granting certain motions to transfer a case to another jurisdiction if the transfer is likely to affect the constitutional rights of the nonmoving party.	In Senate Committee on Judiciary. Probably dead; failed to advance to House before crossover day.
Indiana SB 90	Prohibits the enforcement of a foreign law (defined as a law established and used outside the jurisdiction of the United States) if the enforcement would violate a right granted by the Indiana or United States Constitution. Provides that a provision in a contract or agreement between natural persons calling for the application of foreign law is not enforceable and is void if the provision cannot be modified. Prohibits a court from granting certain motions to transfer a case to another jurisdiction if the transfer is likely to affect the constitutional rights of the nonmoving party.	In Senate Committee on Judiciary. Probably dead; failed to advance to House before crossover day.
Iowa HB 489	Defines “foreign law, legal code, or system” as “any law, legal code, or system of a jurisdiction outside of any state or territory of the United States, including but not limited to international organizations and tribunals, and applied by that jurisdiction’s courts, administrative bodies, or other formal or informal tribunals.” Provides “It is the public policy of this state that the primary factor which a court, administrative agency, arbitrator, mediator, or other entity or person acting under the authority of state law shall consider in granting comity to a decision rendered under any foreign law, legal code, or system against a person in this state is whether the decision rendered violated any right of the person in this state guaranteed by the Constitution of the State of Iowa, the Constitution of the United States, or any statute enacted or decision issued under the constitution of the state of Iowa or the United States.”	In House Judiciary Committee. Carried over from 2011 session. Probably dead; failed to advance to Senate before crossover day.
Iowa HB 575	Enacts “Iowa Freedom and Sovereignty Act.” Defines “Foreign law” as “any law enacted by a jurisdiction or a governmental or quasi-governmental body other than the federal government or a state of the United States. “Foreign law” includes a religious law, legal code, accord, or ruling promulgated or made by an international organization, tribunal, or formal or informal administrative body.” Provides “any foreign law or other law that is in conflict with the principles of the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution of the United States, or the Constitution of the State of Iowa shall not have force or effect in this state…It is the public policy of this state that the only factor that a court, administrative agency, arbitrator, mediator, or other person acting under authority of this state’s laws shall consider in granting comity to a decision rendered under a foreign law that affects a sovereign citizen of this state is whether the decision violates the sovereign citizen’s rights under the Constitution of the United States or the Constitution of the State of Iowa.”	In House State Government Committee. Carried over from 2011 session. Probably dead; failed to advance to Senate before crossover day.
Iowa HJR 14 (Constitutional Amendment)	Provides the state courts “when exercising judicial power, shall uphold and adhere to the law as provided in the Constitution of the United States, the Constitution of the State of Iowa, the United States Code, federal regulations, established common law, the Iowa Code, the Iowa administrative code, and if necessary the law of another state of the United States provided the law of the other state does not include Sharia law. The courts shall not use the legal precepts of other nations or cultures. Specifically, the courts shall not consider international law or Sharia law. The provisions of this section shall apply to all cases before the respective courts including but not limited to cases of first impression.”	In House Judiciary Committee. Carried over from 2011 session. Probably dead; failed to advance to Senate before crossover day.
Iowa SB 2198	Enacts “Iowa Freedom and Sovereignty Act.” Defines “Foreign law” as “any law enacted by a jurisdiction or a governmental or quasi-governmental body other than the federal government or a state of the United States. “Foreign law” includes a religious law, legal code, accord, or ruling promulgated or made by an international organization, tribunal, or formal or informal administrative body.” Provides “any foreign law or other law that is in conflict with the principles of the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution of the United States, or the Constitution of the State of Iowa shall not have force or effect in this state…It is the public policy of this state that the only factor that a court, administrative agency, arbitrator, mediator, or other person acting under authority of this state’s laws shall consider in granting comity to a decision rendered under a foreign law that affects a sovereign citizen of this state is whether the decision violates the sovereign citizen’s rights under the Constitution of the United States or the Constitution of the State of Iowa.”	In Senate State Government Committee. Probably dead; failed to advance to House before crossover day.
Kansas HB 2087	Defines “foreign law,” “legal code” or “system” means any law, legal code or system of a jurisdiction outside of any state or territory of the United States, including, but not limited to, international organizations and tribunals and applied by that jurisdiction’s courts, administrative bodies or other formal or informal tribunals. Provides “Any court, arbitration, tribunal or administrative agency ruling or decision shall violate the public policy of this state and be void and unenforceable if the court, arbitration, tribunal or administrative agency bases its rulings or decisions in the matter at issue in whole or in part on any law, legal code or system that would not grant the parties affected by the ruling or decision the same fundamental liberties, rights and privileges granted under the United States and Kansas constitutions.”	Approved by full House 3/30/11. In Senate Committee on Judiciary. Carried over from 2011 session. Died in committee when legislature adjoruned.
Kansas SB 79	ORIGINAL: Amends the state debt setoff law to provide that the collection assistance fee for all debts owed to a court shall be paid by the debtor as an additional cost, rather than deducted from the debts owed to a court. AS HOUSE AMENDED: Defines “foreign law,” “legal code” or “system” means any law, legal code or system of a jurisdiction outside of any state or territory of the United States, including, but not limited to, international organizations and tribunals and applied by that jurisdiction’s courts, administrative bodies or other formal or informal tribunals. Provides “Any court, arbitration, tribunal or administrative agency ruling or decision shall violate the public policy of this state and be void and unenforceable if the court, arbitration, tribunal or administrative agency bases its rulings or decisions in the matter at issue in whole or in part on any law, legal code or system that would not grant the parties affected by the ruling or decision the same fundamental liberties, rights and privileges granted under the United States and Kansas constitutions.”	Approved by full House 3/21/12. In conference committee.
Kentucky HB 386	Establishes legislative intent that the rights of an individual afforded under the Constitutions of the Commonwealth and the United States take precedence over the application of any foreign law in any judicial or quasi-judicial proceeding. Strictly construe waivers of constitutional rights Provides exceptions for corporate entities Prohibits choice of venue outside of the Commonwealth or United States to preserve the constitutional rights of the person against whom enforcement is sought.	In House Judiciary Committee.
Michigan HB 4769	Defines “foreign law,” as “any law, legal code, or system of a jurisdiction outside of any state or territory of the United States, including, but not limited to, international organizations and tribunals, and applied by that jurisdiction’s courts, administrative bodies, or other formal or informal tribunals.” Provides “A court, arbitrator, administrative agency, or other adjudicative, mediation, or enforcement authority shall not enforce a foreign law if doing so would violate a right guaranteed by the constitution of this state or of the United States.”	In House Committee on Judiciary.
Michigan SB 701	Defines “foreign law,” as “any law, legal code, or system of a jurisdiction outside of any state or territory of the United States, including, but not limited to, international organizations and tribunals, and applied by that jurisdiction’s courts, administrative bodies, or other formal or informal tribunals.” Provides “A court, arbitrator, administrative agency, or other adjudicative, mediation, or enforcement authority shall not enforce a foreign law if doing so would violate a right guaranteed by the constitution of this state or of the United States.”	In Senate Committee on Government Operations.
Minnesota SB 2281	Provides “A court, arbitration, tribunal, or administrative agency ruling or decision violates the public policy of this state and is void and unenforceable if the court, arbitration, tribunal, or administrative agency bases its rulings or decisions in the matter at issue in whole or in part on a law, legal code, or system that would not grant the parties affected by the ruling or decision the same fundamental liberties, rights, and privileges granted under the Minnesota Constitution and the United States Constitution, including but not limited to due process, freedom of religion, speech, or press, and any right of privacy or marriage as specifically defined by the Minnesota Constitution.”	Withdrawn by author 3/5/12.
Mississippi HB 2	Provides “”Foreign law” means any law, rule, or legal code or system established and used or applied in a jurisdiction outside of the states or territories of the United States…A court, arbitrator, administrative agency, or other adjudicative, mediation, or enforcement authority shall not enforce a foreign law if doing so would violate a right guaranteed by the Constitution of this state or of the United States.”	In House Judiciary A Committee. Dead; failed to advance out of committee before deadline.
Mississippi HB 698	Prohibit use of international or Sharia law by state’s judiciary.	In House Judiciary A Committee. Dead; failed to advance out of committee before deadline.
Missouri HB 1512	Provides court, arbitration, tribunal, or administrative agency ruling or decision shall violate the public policy of this state and be void and unenforceable if the court, arbitration, tribunal, or administrative agency bases its rulings or decisions in the matter at issue in whole or in part on any foreign law, legal code, or system that would not grant the parties affected by the ruling or decision the same fundamental liberties, rights, and privileges granted under the United States and Missouri constitutions, including, but not limited to, due process, freedom of religion, speech, or press, and any right of privacy or marriage as specifically defined by the constitution of this state.	Approved by full House 3/29/12.
Missouri SB 676	Mandates that any court, arbitration, tribunal, or administrative agency ruling shall be unenforceable if based on a foreign law that does not grant the parties the same rights as the parties have under the United States and Missouri constitutions.	Approved by Senate General Laws Committee 2/28/12.
Nebraska LB 647	Declares a court, arbitration, tribunal, or administrative agency ruling or decision shall violate the public policy of this state and be void and unenforceable if the court, arbitration, tribunal, or administrative agency bases its rulings on any foreign law, legal code, or system that would not grant the parties affected by the ruling or decisions the same fundamental liberties, rights, and privileges granted under the United States Constitution and the Constitution of Nebraska.	In Senate Judiciary Committee. Carried over from 2011 session.
New Hampshire HB 1422	Declares that no New Hampshire court shall enforce foreign law or a state law enforcing foreign law if such enforcement violates an individual’s or corporation’s rights under the New Hampshire constitution or the United States Constitution.	Approved as amended by full House 2/22/12.
New Jersey AB 919	Provides that a foreign law may only be recognized by a court in New Jersey if it does not violate any right guaranteed by the Constitution of this State or of the United States of America.	Author has announced she will withdraw bill 3/13/12.
New Mexico SJR 14 (Constitutional Amendment)	Provides “The courts provided for in this article, when exercising their judicial authority, shall uphold and adhere to the law as provided in the United States constitution, the constitution of New Mexico, statutes of the United States and federal regulations adopted pursuant thereto, established common law, New Mexico statutes and state regulations adopted pursuant thereto and, if necessary, the law of another state of the United States, provided that the law of the other state does not include Sharia law. The courts shall not consider or apply a rule of comity to the legal precepts of other nations or cultures, international law, laws promulgated by foreign governments or national laws of foreign countries if the consideration or application of the foreign precepts or laws would violate the public policy of the state of New Mexico or reduce or impair the rights of any resident of the state of New Mexico existing under New Mexico statutes or common law governing child custody, rights of married persons, property rights, protection from domestic violence or any criminal law. The courts shall not consider or apply Sharia law. The provisions of this section shall apply to all cases before the respective courts, including, but not limited to, cases of first impression.”	In Senate Rules Committee. Died when legislature adjourned.
North Carolina HB 640	Declares “it to be the public policy of this State to protect its citizens from the application of foreign law that would result in the violation of a right of a natural person guaranteed by the North Carolina Constitution or the United States Constitution. The public policies expressed in this section shall apply only to actual or foreseeable violations of a constitutional right resulting from the application of the foreign law.”	In House Committee on Judiciary Subcommittee C. Carried over from 2011 session.
Oklahoma HB 1552	Provides any court, arbitration, tribunal, or administrative agency ruling or decision shall violate the public policy of this state and be void and unenforceable if the court, arbitration, tribunal, or administrative agency bases its rulings or decisions in the matter at issue in whole or in part on any law, rule, legal code or system that would not grant the parties affected by the ruling or decision the same fundamental liberties, rights, and privileges granted under the United States and Oklahoma Constitutions.	Approved by full House 3/17/11. In Senate Rules Committee. Carried over from 2011 session.
Pennsylvania HB 2029	Provides a tribunal shall not consider a foreign legal code or system which does not grant the parties affected by the ruling or decision the same fundamental liberties, rights and privileges granted under the United States Constitution and the Constitution of Pennsylvania.	In House Judiciary Committee. Carried over from 2011 session.
South Carolina HB 3490	Provides “As used in this section, the term “foreign law” means any law, rule, or legal code or system established and used or applied in or by another jurisdiction outside of the United States or its territories…A court, arbitrator, administrative agency, or other adjudicative, mediation, or enforcement authority may not enforce a foreign law if it would violate a constitutionally guaranteed right of this State or of the United States. The provisions of this section apply only to actual or foreseeable violations of the constitutional rights of a person caused by the application of the foreign law.”	In House Judiciary Committee. Carried over from 2011 session.
South Carolina SB 444	Provides “As used in this section, the term ‘foreign law’ means any law, rule, or legal code or system established and used or applied in or by another jurisdiction outside of the United States or its territories….A court, arbitrator, administrative agency, or other adjudicative, mediation, or enforcement authority may not enforce a foreign law if it would violate a constitutionally guaranteed right of this State or of the United States. The provisions of this section apply only to actual or foreseeable violations of the constitutional rights of a person caused by the application of the foreign law.”	In Senate Judiciary Committee. Carried over from 2011 session.
South Dakota HB 1253	ORIGINAL: “No court, arbitrator, administrative agency, or other adjudicative mediation or enforcement authority may render any judgment predicated on any religious code or enforce any provisions of any religious code.” AS AMENDED: “No court, administrative agency, or other governmental agency may enforce any provisions of any religious code.”	Signed into law by Governor 3/12/12.
South Dakota SB 136	ORIGINAL: Provides any ruling or decision that makes use of international or foreign law is void and unenforceable if the court bases its ruling or decision in the matter at issue in whole or in part on any foreign law, legal code, or system that would not grant the parties affected by the ruling or decision the same fundamental liberties, rights, and privileges granted under the constitutions of the United States and South Dakota, including due process of law, freedom of religion, speech, or press, and any right of privacy or marriage as specifically provided by the constitution of this state. Foreign law, legal code, or system is any foreign law, legal code, or system of a jurisdiction outside of any state or territory of the United States, including international organizations and tribunals, and applied by that jurisdiction’s courts, administrative bodies, or other formal or informal tribunals. Specifies the term foreign law does not include any tribal laws of the Native American tribes in the state. AS AMENDED: “No court, arbitrator, administrative agency, or other adjudicative mediation or enforcement authority may render any judgment predicated on any religious code or enforce any provisions of any religious code.”	Deferred to 41st day (i.e. killed) by Senate Judiciary Committee 2/2/12.
Virginia HB 631	Provides that court decisions and contracts and other agreements will be void as violative of the public policy of the Commonwealth where such decisions or contracts are based on foreign law, i.e., law applied in a jurisdiction outside of the United States, where the application of such foreign law would violate a person’s rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution or the Constitution of Virginia.	Continued to 2013 by House Committee for Courts of Justice 2/10/12.
Virginia HB 825	Prohibits any Virginia court or administrative agency from applying the law of any jurisdiction outside of the United States and its territories unless the application is required by the United States Constitution, the Constitution of Virginia, or any federal or state law.	Approved by House Committee for Courts of Justice 2/3/12. Continued to 2013 by House Committee for Courts of Justice 2/10/12.
West Virginia HB 3220	Provides “”foreign law, legal code or system” means any law, legal code, or system of a jurisdiction outside of any state or territory of the United States, including, but not limited to, international organizations and tribunals, and applied by that jurisdiction’s courts, administrative bodies, or other formal or informal tribunals…It is the public policy of this state that the primary factor which a court, administrative agency, arbitrator, mediator or other entity or person acting under the authority of state law shall consider in granting comity to a decision rendered under any foreign law, legal code or system against a natural person in this state is whether the decision rendered either violated or would violate any right of the natural person in this state guaranteed by the Constitution of the State of West Virginia or the United States Constitution or any statute or decision under those Constitutions.”	In House Judiciary Committee. Carried over from 2011 session. Died when legislature adjourned.

Louisiana: Constitutional amendment up for committee debate would require courts use “strict scrutiny” when it comes to firearms cases

Bill Raftery — Mon, 02 Apr 2012 19:19:11 +0000

Those familiar with U.S. Supreme Court decisions will find the phrase “strict scrutiny” familiar. In short, strict scrutiny requires the court to examine any law or governmental act and determine

it meets a compelling governmental interest
it is narrowly tailored to achieve that goal or interest, and
it is the least restrictive means for achieving that interest

The concept and language is one derived and devised by the courts: a review of existing state statutes and constitutions finds the phrase seems to appear in only 3 places*:

Florida Stat. § 163.3215 (Regarding land use, “The standard of review applied by the special master in determining whether a proposed development order is consistent with the comprehensive plan shall be strict scrutiny in accordance with Florida law.”)
Louisiana R.S. 12:130.1 (Regarding shareholder’s rights, “Any transaction that is executed during the safeguard period which involves the assets of a safeguarded entity shall be subject to judicial review under the standard of strict scrutiny.”)
New Hampshire RSA 676:4 (“Jurisdiction of the courts to review procedural aspects of planning board decisions and actions shall be limited to consideration of compliance with applicable provisions of the constitution, statutes and regulations. The procedural requirements specified in this section are intended to provide fair and reasonable treatment for all parties and persons. The planning board’s procedures shall not be subjected to strict scrutiny for technical compliance.”)

*Update 4/2/12 5:56 – While “strict scrutiny” appears only in 3 statutes, a reader notes that the concept exists in various state laws. My point with the above was to note the lack of usage of the phrase. I’ve bolded to make my point clearer.

Louisiana may, however, add a fourth reference to strict scrutiny if its voters approve SB 303, a constitutional amendment which would modify the state’s version of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

The provision currently reads:

§11. Right to Keep and Bear Arms

Section 11. The right of each citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged, but this provision shall not prevent the passage of laws to prohibit the carrying of weapons concealed on the person.

SB 303 would change it to:

§11. Right to Acquire, Keep, Possess, Transport, Carry, Transfer, and Bear Arms

Section 11. The right of each citizen to acquire, keep, possess, transport, carry, transfer, and use arms for defense of life and liberty, and for all other legitimate purposes is fundamental and shall not be denied or infringed, and any restriction shall be subject to strict scrutiny.

The amendment is set for a hearing tomorrow (April 3) before Louisiana Senate’s Judiciary C Committee.

In shocking turn of events, Kansas House narrowly rejects constitutional amendment to strip courts of jurisdiction on funding issues

Bill Raftery — Wed, 28 Mar 2012 19:34:28 +0000

A plan to strip the courts of jurisdiction on funding issues that passed a procedural vote in Kansas’ House with 91 votes has just been narrowly rejected.

As previously mentioned, under HCR 5006 the judicial branch is prohibited from directing the legislative branch to make any appropriation of money or to redirect an appropriation or limit in any fashion an appropriation already made by law, except as the legislative branch may provide by law. A provision that read “or as may be required by the constitution of the United States” was deleted in committee.

The Kansas constitution requires 2/3rds of the House and Senate approve any constitutional amendments; in the 125 member House that means 83 Yes votes. HCR 5006 received only 79 Yes votes to 44 No with 2 members absent or not voting. This was a huge turn around from a day before, when the measure was approved by the committee of the whole 91 to 31.

Kansas House committee removes provision requiring state courts order funding as required by the U.S. Constitution

Bill Raftery — Thu, 22 Mar 2012 13:12:39 +0000

Yesterday I noted with respect to a Minnesota bill that it was common for legislators to propose constitutional amendments to prohibit state courts from ordering funds to be expended. Late last week Kansas’ House Judiciary Committee advanced just such a bill, but with an interesting change.

HCR 5006, a state constitutional amendment introduced in January 2011 read

The executive and judicial branches shall have no authority to direct the legislative branch to make any appropriation of money or to redirect or limit in any fashion an appropriation already made by law, except as the legislative branch may provide by law or as may be required by the constitution of the United States.

It was amended in February 2012 to add a single phrase (in bold)

The executive and judicial branches shall have no authority to direct the legislative branch to make any appropriation of money or to redirect an appropriation or limit in any fashion an appropriation already made by law, except as the legislative branch may provide by law or as may be required by the constitution of the United States.

The bill lay dormant for the year until March 16 when the House Judiciary Committee took up the bill again, this time removing a provision (strikeout).

The executive and judicial branches shall have no authority to direct the legislative branch to make any appropriation of money or to redirect an appropriation or limit in any fashion an appropriation already made by law, except as the legislative branch may provide by law ~~or as may be required by the constitution of the United States~~.

The bill now advances to the House floor where it is on the calendar for March 26.