Gavel to Gavel » Mississippi http://gaveltogavel.us/site A review of state legislation affecting the courts. Fri, 03 Feb 2012 21:32:23 +0000 en hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 Bans on court use of sharia/international law: Pennsylvania bill introduced http://gaveltogavel.us/site/2011/11/28/bans-on-court-use-of-shariainternational-law-pennsylvania-bill-introduced/ http://gaveltogavel.us/site/2011/11/28/bans-on-court-use-of-shariainternational-law-pennsylvania-bill-introduced/#comments Mon, 28 Nov 2011 15:57:08 +0000 Bill Raftery http://gaveltogavel.us/site/?p=3588 Welcome New York Times readers!

Welcome Post-Gazette readers!

Since the last update of this list in October, one piece of legislation has been introduced.  Pennsylvania’s HB 2029 bans court references to any “foreign legal code or system” if doing so would impair constitutional rights.

Full roster of 2010 bills are available. 2011 and 2012 bills after the jump.

2012

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.” Prefiled. In House Committee on Judiciary.

2011

Bill Provisions Status Carryover in 2012?
Alabama HB 597 (Constitutional Amendment) Provides “the courts…when exercising their judicial authority, shall uphold and adhere to the law as provided in the United States Constitution, the Constitution of Alabama of 1901, the United States Code, federal regulations promulgated pursuant thereto, established common law, the Code of Alabama 1975, and rules promulgated thereto, and if necessary the law of another state of the United States, provided the law of the other state does not include Sharia, in making judicial decisions. The courts shall not look to the legal precepts of other nations or cultures. Specifically, the courts shall not consider international law or Sharia. The provisions of this subsection shall apply to all cases before the respective courts including, but not limited to, cases of first impression.” Died in House Committee on Judiciary when legislature adjourned. No
Alabama HB 607 (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.” Died in House Committee on Judiciary when legislature adjourned. No
Alabama SB 61 (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 3/24/11. Died on Senate floor when legislature adjourned. No
Alabama SB 62 (Constitutional Amendment) Provides Alabama courts “when exercising their judicial authority, shall uphold and adhere to the law as provided in the United States Constitution, the Constitution of Alabama of 1901, the United States Code, federal regulations promulgated pursuant thereto, established common law, the Code of Alabama 1975, and rules promulgated thereto, and if necessary the law of another state of the United States, provided the law of the other state does not include Sharia, in making judicial decisions. The courts shall not look to the legal precepts of other nations or cultures. Specifically, the courts shall not consider international law or Sharia. The provisions of this subsection shall apply to all cases before the respective courts including, but not limited to, cases of first impression.” Approved by Senate Committee on Judiciary 3/24/11. Died on Senate floor when legislature adjourned. No
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. Died in House Finance Committee when legislature adjourned.
 Probably
Arizona HB 2064 Defines “foreign law” as “any law, rule or legal code or system other than the constitution, laws and ratified treaties of the united states and the territories of the united states, or the constitution and laws of this state….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 or conflict with the laws of the united states or of this state.” Signed into law by governor 4/12/11. No
Arizona HB 2582 Enacts the “Arizona Foreign Decisions Act” Declares the acceptance of Arizona into the Union was a “compact”. Declares “Congress has no authority to preempt state regulation of state courts.” Prohibits courts from implementing, referring or incorporating or using “a tenet of any body of religious sectarian law” and specifically includes sharia law, canon law, halacha and karma, but exempts decisions based on Anglo-American legal tradition, laws or case law from Great Britain prior enactment of the statute, or the definition of marriage as between one man and one woman, “and the principles on which the United States was founded.” Prohibits use of any case law or statute from a non-U.S. jurisdiction or “foreign body”, including the United Nations. Decisions that make use of a body of religious sectarian law or foreign law declared void and usages declared to be grounds for impeachment. Declares these provisions apply to Federal courts sitting in diversity jurisdiction. Requires any court that construes this statute must do so in a way to confine the power of Congress and the federal judiciary. Approved by House Judiciary Committee 2/17/11. Died in House Rules Committee when legislature adjourned. No
Arizona HCR 2033 (Constitutional Amendment) Provides state’s courts shall not consider, enforce or otherwise incorporate into any decision on the merits the legal precepts of other nations or cultures that run counter to the laws of this state unless expressly ratified by bicameralism and presentment in the state legislature or duly ratified as a treaty by the Senate of the United States. Provides state courts shall uphold and adhere to the law as provided in the United States Constitution, the Constitution of this state, The United States Code, federal regulations adopted pursuant to the United States code, established common law, the laws of this state and rules adopted pursuant to the laws of this state and, if necessary, the laws of another state of the United States provided the law of the other state does not incorporate directly or by reference international law or the precepts of nations or cultures. Died in House when legislature adjourned. No
Arizona SCR 1010 (Constitutional Amendment) Requires courts, when making judicial decisions, to uphold and adhere to the laws of the U.S. Constitution, Arizona Constitution, U.S. Code, Federal regulations, established common law, Arizona laws and rules and if necessary, the laws of another state within the U.S. provided the laws in the other state do not include international law. Prohibits Arizona courts from considering international law or legal precepts of other nations or cultures when making judicial decisions. Died in Senate Committee on Judiciary when legislature adjourned. No
Arkansas SJR 10 (Constitutional Amendment) (Placeholder bill) Declares “The purpose of this Senate Joint Resolution is to amend the Arkansas Constitution concerning the application of foreign laws, legal codes, or systems for the purpose of protecting rights and privileges granted under the United States Constitution and the Arkansas Constitution.” Died in Senate Committee on State Agencies and Governmental Affairs when legislature adjourned. No
Arkansas SB 97 Prohibits 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 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 Constitution and the Arkansas Constitution Died in Senate Committee on Judiciary when legislature adjourned. No
Florida HB 1273 Defines term “foreign law, legal code, or system”; specifies public policy of this state in applying choice of foreign law, legal code, or system. Declares that certain decisions rendered under such laws, codes, or systems are void. Indefinitely postponed and withdrawn from consideration 5/7/11. No
Florida SB 1294 Specifies the public policy of this state in applying the choice of a foreign law, legal code, or system under certain circumstances. Declares that certain decisions rendered under such laws, codes, or systems are void. Approved by Senate Judiciary Committee 4/4/11. Indefinitely postponed and withdrawn from consideration 5/7/11. No
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.” Died in House Committee on Judiciary when legislature adjourned. Probably
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.” Died in House Committee on Judiciary Non-Civil when legislature adjourned. Probably
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 Died in Senate Committee on the Judiciary when legislature adjourned. Probably
Indiana HB 1078 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. Died in House Committee on Judiciary when legislature adjourned. No
Indiana SB 298 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. Died in Senate Committee on Judiciary when legislature adjourned. No
Indiana SB 520 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. Approved by full Senate 2/17/11. Died in House Committee on Judiciary when legislature adjourned. No
Indiana SJR 16 (Constitutional Amendment) Provides a court may not enforce a law, rule, or legal code or system established and either used or applied in a jurisdiction outside the states of the United States, the District of Columbia, or the territories of the United States if doing so would violate a right guaranteed by this constitution or the Constitution of the United States. Died in Senate Committee on Judiciary when legislature adjourned. No
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.” Died in House Judiciary Committee when legislature adjourned. Probably
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.” Died in House State Government Committee when legislature adjourned. Probably
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.” Died in House Judiciary Committee when legislature adjourned. Probably
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. Died in Senate Committee on Judiciary when legislature adjourned. Probably
Maine HB 811 Provides “”foreign law, legal code or system” means any law, legal code or legal system of a jurisdiction outside of any state or territory of the United States, including, but not limited to, international organizations and tribunals, that is applied by that jurisdiction’s courts, administrative bodies or other formal or informal tribunals…The primary factor that a court, administrative agency, arbitrator, mediator or other entity or person acting under the authority of state law must consider in granting comity to a decision rendered under a foreign law, legal code or legal 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 Maine or the United States Constitution or any statute or decision under those constitutions.” Rejected by Joint Committee on Judiciary 5/25/11. No
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. Probably
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. Probably
Mississippi HB 301 Prohibits courts from enforcing a foreign law if doing so would violate a right guaranteed by the Constitution of this state or of the United States. Died in House Judiciary A Committee when legislature adjourned. No
Mississippi HB 525 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.” Died in House Judiciary A Committee when legislature adjourned. No
Missouri HB 708 Provides any court, arbitration, tribunal, or administrative agency ruling or decision violates the public policy of this state and shall be void and unenforceable if such 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 constitutions of this state and the United States. Approved by full House 4/20/11. Died on House Informal Calendar when legislature adjourned. No
Missouri HB 768 Defines “foreign law” as “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.” 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.” Died in House Judiciary Committee when legislature adjourned. No
Missouri HJR 31 (Constitutional Amendment) Provides state courts “when exercising their judicial authority, shall uphold and adhere to the law as provided in the United States Constitution, the Constitution of Missouri, the United States Code, federal regulations promulgated pursuant thereto, and if necessary the law of another state of the United States, provided the law of the other state does not include Sharia law, in making judicial decisions. The courts shall not look to 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.” Died in House Judiciary Committee when legislature adjourned. No
Missouri SB 308 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…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 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.” Approved by Senate Judiciary and Civil and Criminal Jurisprudence Committee 4/28/11. Died on Senate floor when legislature adjourned. No
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. Died in Senate Judiciary Committee when legislature adjourned. Probably
New Mexico SJR 18 (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.” Died in Senate Rules Committee when legislature adjourned. No
New Jersey AB 3496 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. Carried over from 2011 session. In House Judiciary Committee. Carried over into 2011 session. No
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.” Died in House Committee on Judiciary Subcommittee C when legislature adjourned. Possibly
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. Died in Senate Rules Committee when legislature adjourned. Probably
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 Yes
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.” Died in House Judiciary Committee when legislature adjourned. Probably
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.” Died in Senate Judiciary Committee when legislature adjourned. Probably
South Dakota HJR 1004 (Constitutional Amendment) Provides no South Dakota state court may apply international law, the law of any foreign nation, or any foreign religious or moral code with the force of law in the adjudication of any case under its jurisdiction. Tabled by Senate Judiciary Committee 2/17/11. No
South Dakota SB 201 Declares “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 international organizations and tribunals, and applied by that jurisdiction’s courts, administrative bodies, or other formal or informal tribunals…Any court, arbitration, tribunal, or administrative agency ruling or decision 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 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 constitutions of the United States and the State of South Dakota.” Deferred to 41st legislative day (i.e. killed) by Senate Commerce and Energy Committee 2/16/11. No
Texas HB 274 AS AMENDED: Provides “In this chapter, “foreign law” means a law, rule, or legal code of a jurisdiction outside of the states and territories of the United States…A ruling or decision of a court, arbitrator, or administrative adjudicator on a matter arising under the Family Code may not be based on a foreign law if the application of that law would violate a right guaranteed by the United States Constitution or the constitution of this state.” Approved as amended by full House 5/10/11. 4/18/11. Removed by Senate State Affairs Committee 5/23/11. No
Texas HB 911 AS AMENDED: Provides “In this chapter, “foreign law” means a law, rule, or legal code of a jurisdiction outside of the states and territories of the United States…A ruling or decision of a court, arbitrator, or administrative adjudicator on a matter arising under the Family Code may not be based on a foreign law if the application of that law would violate a right guaranteed by the United States Constitution or the constitution of this state.” Approved as amended by House Committee on Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence 4/18/11. Died in House Calendars Committee when legislature adjourned. No
Texas HB 999 Declares “”foreign law” means a law, rule, or legal code of a jurisdiction outside of the states and territories of the United States…A ruling or decision of a court, arbitrator, or administrative adjudicator may not be based on a foreign law if the application of that law would violate a right guaranteed by the United States Constitution or the constitution of this state.” Died in House State Affairs Committee when legislature adjourned. No
Texas HB 1240 Declares “”foreign or international law or doctrine” means a law, rule, legal code, or principle of a jurisdiction outside of the states and territories of the United States, including international law, that is not codified or recognized by this state or the United States…A court, arbitrator, or administrative adjudicator may not base a ruling or decision on a foreign or international law or doctrine; or a prior ruling or decision that was based on a foreign or international law or doctrine.” Approved by House Select Committee on State Sovereignty 5/10/11. Died in House Calendars Committee when legislature adjourned. No
Texas HB 3027 Declares “”foreign law” means a law, rule, or legal code of a jurisdiction outside of the states and territories of the United States…A ruling or decision of a court, arbitrator, or administrative adjudicator may not be based on a foreign law if the application of that law would violate a right guaranteed by the United States Constitution or the constitution of this state.”. Died in House Committee on Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence when legislature adjourned. No
Texas HJR 57 (Constitutional Amendment) Provides “A court of this state shall uphold the laws of the Constitution of the United States, this Constitution, federal laws, and laws of this state. A court of this state may not enforce, consider, or apply any religious or cultural law.” Died in House State Affairs Committee when legislature adjourned. No
Texas HB 79A (Special Session) AS AMENDED: Provides “In this chapter, “foreign law” means a law, rule, or legal code of a jurisdiction outside of the states and territories of the United States…A ruling or decision of a court, arbitrator, or administrative adjudicator on a matter arising under the Family Code may not be based on a foreign law if the application of that law would violate a right guaranteed by the United States Constitution or the constitution of this state.” Approved as amended by full House 6/22/11. Removed by Senate Jurisprudence Committee 6/27/11. No
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.” Died in House Judiciary Committee when legislature adjourned. Possibly
Wyoming HJR 8 (Constitutional Amendment) Prohibits court use of sharia law. Prohibits Wyoming courts from referencing law of other U.S. states if law of the other state does include sharia law. Requires Wyoming courts uphold and adhere to the law as provided in the constitution of the United States, the Wyoming constitution, the United States Code and federal regulations promulgated pursuant thereto, laws of this state, and established common law as specified by legislative enactment. Prohibits courts from considering the legal precepts of other nations or cultures including, without limitation, international law and Sharia law. Died in House Judiciary Committee when legislature adjourned. No
]]> http://gaveltogavel.us/site/2011/11/28/bans-on-court-use-of-shariainternational-law-pennsylvania-bill-introduced/feed/ 4 Why Senate confirmation for state judicial nominees? Why not House? Or joint? http://gaveltogavel.us/site/2011/10/11/why-senate-confirmation-for-state-judicial-nominees-why-not-house-or-joint/ http://gaveltogavel.us/site/2011/10/11/why-senate-confirmation-for-state-judicial-nominees-why-not-house-or-joint/#comments Tue, 11 Oct 2011 19:43:25 +0000 Bill Raftery http://gaveltogavel.us/site/?p=3110 Numerous state legislatures in 2011 that have a version of merit selection (Arizona, Florida, Oklahoma) or have considered adopting merit selection (Mississippi, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin) have put in provisions for Senate confirmation. Additionally, Rhode Island (HB 5675) considered removing the state senate’s existing confirmation power with respect to a trial court (Superior Court) and transferring the power to the house.

But the question arises: why Senate confirmation? There’s the case for reference to the U.S. Senate and its role in federal judicial confirmations. And this was consistent when a) state senators were elected by counties to represent the county as a whole (as in New Jersey) or clusters of counties (as in New York) and b) trial judges (and occasionally appellate judges) were picked by districts made up of clusters of counties.

Thanks to one person/one vote decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court over the years, the practice of Senate districts following county lines is over. The practice of appellate judges being chosen based on geography is also on the decline with only 10 states continuing to use the practice for courts of last resort and 17 of 40 states with intermediate appellate courts using district based selection (although Montana may buck the trend in 2012, Oregon voters rejected the idea 2-1 in 2006).

Moreover, as I noted in March, such proposals have fared much better in state senates than in state houses, and history bears this out. In short, when the power to confirm has been handed solely to the state senate, it has had mixed support in the state’s house. The only way it happens, normally, is when there is a litany of other issues in play.

When does Senate confirmation of appellate nominees come into a constitution?

  • Conventions changing entire constitution: Delaware, Hawaii, and New Jersey
  • Constitutional amendment changing most/entire Judiciary Article: Maryland (1970 attempt) and Utah
  • Constitutional amendment changing judicial selection only: Maryland (1976), New York
  • Constitutional amendment changing most/entire Executive Branch Article: Maine, Vermont

In the case of Maryland (1976) and New York (1977) the amendments to have Senate confirmation met with lower House approval as part of a package of bills related to the courts.

This institutional inertia may explain some 2011 activity. Consider the following:

  • The original Florida House proposal HJR 7111, introduced March 22, 2011 included nothing about Senate confirmation of justices of the planned modified supreme court with civil and criminal panels. The only mention of the Senate was a provision stripping the power of the court(s) to name their chief justice and giving it to the Governor with Senate confirmation. Six days later, SJR 1664 requiring Senate confirmation for the Supreme Court was passed by the Senate Judiciary Committee. On April 5, the Senate Governmental Oversight and Accountability Committee gave its approval of SJR 1664. By April 8, SCR 1046) and Oklahoma Senate (SB 621) did not fare as well. The Arizona bill went nowhere. The Oklahoma bill moved through the Senate and was not even brought up for a House committee hearing.

Roles of legislatures in appellate judicial selection

Both chambers

Connecticut: since the 1818 Constitution. An 1880 amendment (Article XXVI) allowed for the Governor to nominate, but still required confirmation by both chambers. A 1986 amendment added merit selection, permitting the Governor to nominate only from those names submitted by the Judicial Selection Commission.

Rhode Island: since the 1842 Constitution and kept as part of the 1986 constitution. A 1994 amendment added merit selection, permitting the Governor to nominate only from those names submitted by an independent non-partisan judicial nominating commission.

South Carolina: since the 1776 Constitution and kept as a part of the 1778, 1790, 1861, 1865 and 1868 constitutions, plus a 1973 revision to the judiciary article. A 1997 constitutional amendment added merit selection allowing the legislature to elect only from those names submitted by the Judicial Merit Selection Commission.

Virginia: since the 1776 Constitution and kept as part of the 1850, 1861, 1864, 1870, and 1902 constitutions.

Senate only

Delaware: since the 1897 Constitution. The 1776 Constitution specified a joint ballot of both chambers of the general assembly and the “president” (i.e. governor) of the state. The 1792 and 1831 Constitutions placed the power of appointment solely in the hands of the Governor.

Hawaii: since the 1949 Constitution.

Maryland: since a 1976 constitutional amendment. The 1776 Constitution gave appointment to the Governor with the Council “for the time being” and put it solely in the hands of the Governor via an 1837 amendment. Maryland’s 1864 Constitution provided for direct election of the judges of the top court (Court of Appeals), but provided the Governor with Senate confirmation would select the chief judge. The 1867 Constitution made 7 of the 8 chief judges of the state’s judicial circuits the state’s top court and provided the Governor with the confirmation of the Senate would select the chief judge of the Court of Appeals. This practice continued until a 1943 constitutional amendment separated the roles of chief circuit judge from judge of the Court of Appeals but still required direct election. A 1960 amendment reaffirmed direct election, while changing the geographic boundaries.

It should be noted that the Maryland proposal was initially rejected in 1970 (1970 version) and included most courts in the state (judges of the Court of Appeals, intermediate courts of appeal, Circuit Courts, and the Supreme Bench of Baltimore City), increased terms of office to 15 years, and made revisions to the power of the Commission on Judicial Disabilities which had just been created in 1966. The successful 1976 version focused exclusively on merit selection with Senate confirmation for appellate courts only.

New Jersey: since the 1844 Constitution. The 1776 Constitution made the Governor and Council the state’s top court (Court of Appeals). The current 1947 Constitution replicated the Governor-appoints-Senate confirms system of the 1844 Constitution, but with a significant change. Rather than being re-confirmed every 7 years, the justices would face only 2 Senate confirmations: one for their initial appointment and a second after 7 years. If reconfirmed a second time, they would remain in office until age 70.

New York Court of Appeals (state’s court of last resort): sporadically since the 1777 Constitution. Under the 1777 Constitution, a Council on Appointments made up of 4 Senators chosen by the Assembly, plus the Governor (to break ties) was used. The 1821 Constitution changed this to a Governor-appoints-Senate-confirms system. The 1846 Constitution created a bifurcated election system: 4 of the 8 judges would be elected by the statewide, the other 4 would be locally elected judges of the general jurisdiction court (confusingly called the “supreme court”) “having the shortest time to serve.” A new constitution was voted on, section by section, in 1869; the judicial article was the only one approved. That new article provided for statewide election. The 1894 Constitution and 1938 Constitution continued the statewide election system. A 1977 amendment that revamped much of the Judiciary Article created the present merit-selection-Senate-confirmation system.

10/24/11 update: Selection to the state’s primary intermediate appellate court, the Appellate Division, has no role for the legislature. The Governor alone elevates from the judges elected locally in partisan elections to the general jurisdiction court (confusingly called the “Supreme Court”).

Utah: since a 1984 constitutional amendment. The original 1895 constitution provided for statewide election. The 1984 amendment overhauling the entire Judiciary Article provided for the present merit-selection-Senate-confirmation system. A subsequent 1992 amendment increased the time for the Senate to consider nominations.

Vermont: since a 1971 constitutional amendment. The 1793 Constitution provide for joint election by the unicameral House and Executive Council, a practice that was continued when the Council was made the Senate via a 1836 amendment. An 1890 effort to shift this to the Senate alone was rejected by the Senate itself but was incorporated into the 1971 revision of the state’s entire Judiciary Article.

Hybrid

Maine: since a 1975 constitutional amendment (L.D. 25). The 1820 Constitution in place when Maine was separated from Massachusetts and became a state kept the Massachusetts practice of supreme court selection method of governor-appoints-and-executive-council-confirms. The 1975 amendment abolishing the Council created the current procedure for confirmation: the Governor nominates and a Joint House/Senate legislative committee recommends confirmation or rejection. That recommendation is binding unless the Senate overrides with 2/3 vote.

]]> http://gaveltogavel.us/site/2011/10/11/why-senate-confirmation-for-state-judicial-nominees-why-not-house-or-joint/feed/ 1 Bans on court use of sharia/international law: list of all bills since 2010, new 2011 Michigan bill, first 2012 bill prefiled http://gaveltogavel.us/site/2011/10/03/bans-on-court-use-of-shariainternational-law-list-of-all-bills-since-2010-new-2011-michigan-bill-first-2012-bill-prefiled/ http://gaveltogavel.us/site/2011/10/03/bans-on-court-use-of-shariainternational-law-list-of-all-bills-since-2010-new-2011-michigan-bill-first-2012-bill-prefiled/#comments Mon, 03 Oct 2011 15:27:57 +0000 Bill Raftery http://gaveltogavel.us/site/?p=3015 This post has been updated. Click here.

Since the last update of this list in August, two pieces of legislation have been introduced. Michigan’s SB 701 appears to be the Senate version of HB 4769, which has gone nowhere since its June introduction.

The other bill is Alabama SB 33 of 2012, a prefiled bill for the next session. SB 33 of 2012 is a constitutional amendment that looks more like HB 607 / SB 61 than HB 597 / SB 62 in that it does not specifically mention “sharia”.

It should be noted that at least some 2011 bills will make a return in 2012; roughly half of states allow bills to be “carried over” from one session to the next. Definitive answers as to which bills will return will be available as the legislatures come back into session in January.

Full roster of bills going back to 2010 after the jump.

2012

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.” Prefiled. In House Committee on Judiciary.

2011

Bill Provisions Status Carryover in 2012?
Alabama HB 597 (Constitutional Amendment) Provides “the courts…when exercising their judicial authority, shall uphold and adhere to the law as provided in the United States Constitution, the Constitution of Alabama of 1901, the United States Code, federal regulations promulgated pursuant thereto, established common law, the Code of Alabama 1975, and rules promulgated thereto, and if necessary the law of another state of the United States, provided the law of the other state does not include Sharia, in making judicial decisions. The courts shall not look to the legal precepts of other nations or cultures. Specifically, the courts shall not consider international law or Sharia. The provisions of this subsection shall apply to all cases before the respective courts including, but not limited to, cases of first impression.” Died in House Committee on Judiciary when legislature adjourned. No
Alabama HB 607 (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.” Died in House Committee on Judiciary when legislature adjourned. No
Alabama SB 61 (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 3/24/11. Died on Senate floor when legislature adjourned. No
Alabama SB 62 (Constitutional Amendment) Provides Alabama courts “when exercising their judicial authority, shall uphold and adhere to the law as provided in the United States Constitution, the Constitution of Alabama of 1901, the United States Code, federal regulations promulgated pursuant thereto, established common law, the Code of Alabama 1975, and rules promulgated thereto, and if necessary the law of another state of the United States, provided the law of the other state does not include Sharia, in making judicial decisions. The courts shall not look to the legal precepts of other nations or cultures. Specifically, the courts shall not consider international law or Sharia. The provisions of this subsection shall apply to all cases before the respective courts including, but not limited to, cases of first impression.” Approved by Senate Committee on Judiciary 3/24/11. Died on Senate floor when legislature adjourned. No
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. Died in House Finance Committee when legislature adjourned.
 Probably
Arizona HB 2064 Defines “foreign law” as “any law, rule or legal code or system other than the constitution, laws and ratified treaties of the united states and the territories of the united states, or the constitution and laws of this state….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 or conflict with the laws of the united states or of this state.” Signed into law by governor 4/12/11. No
Arizona HB 2582 Enacts the “Arizona Foreign Decisions Act” Declares the acceptance of Arizona into the Union was a “compact”. Declares “Congress has no authority to preempt state regulation of state courts.” Prohibits courts from implementing, referring or incorporating or using “a tenet of any body of religious sectarian law” and specifically includes sharia law, canon law, halacha and karma, but exempts decisions based on Anglo-American legal tradition, laws or case law from Great Britain prior enactment of the statute, or the definition of marriage as between one man and one woman, “and the principles on which the United States was founded.” Prohibits use of any case law or statute from a non-U.S. jurisdiction or “foreign body”, including the United Nations. Decisions that make use of a body of religious sectarian law or foreign law declared void and usages declared to be grounds for impeachment. Declares these provisions apply to Federal courts sitting in diversity jurisdiction. Requires any court that construes this statute must do so in a way to confine the power of Congress and the federal judiciary. Approved by House Judiciary Committee 2/17/11. Died in House Rules Committee when legislature adjourned. No
Arizona HCR 2033 (Constitutional Amendment) Provides state’s courts shall not consider, enforce or otherwise incorporate into any decision on the merits the legal precepts of other nations or cultures that run counter to the laws of this state unless expressly ratified by bicameralism and presentment in the state legislature or duly ratified as a treaty by the Senate of the United States. Provides state courts shall uphold and adhere to the law as provided in the United States Constitution, the Constitution of this state, The United States Code, federal regulations adopted pursuant to the United States code, established common law, the laws of this state and rules adopted pursuant to the laws of this state and, if necessary, the laws of another state of the United States provided the law of the other state does not incorporate directly or by reference international law or the precepts of nations or cultures. Died in House when legislature adjourned. No
Arizona SCR 1010 (Constitutional Amendment) Requires courts, when making judicial decisions, to uphold and adhere to the laws of the U.S. Constitution, Arizona Constitution, U.S. Code, Federal regulations, established common law, Arizona laws and rules and if necessary, the laws of another state within the U.S. provided the laws in the other state do not include international law. Prohibits Arizona courts from considering international law or legal precepts of other nations or cultures when making judicial decisions. Died in Senate Committee on Judiciary when legislature adjourned. No
Arkansas SJR 10 (Constitutional Amendment) (Placeholder bill) Declares “The purpose of this Senate Joint Resolution is to amend the Arkansas Constitution concerning the application of foreign laws, legal codes, or systems for the purpose of protecting rights and privileges granted under the United States Constitution and the Arkansas Constitution.” Died in Senate Committee on State Agencies and Governmental Affairs when legislature adjourned. No
Arkansas SB 97 Prohibits 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 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 Constitution and the Arkansas Constitution Died in Senate Committee on Judiciary when legislature adjourned. No
Florida HB 1273 Defines term “foreign law, legal code, or system”; specifies public policy of this state in applying choice of foreign law, legal code, or system. Declares that certain decisions rendered under such laws, codes, or systems are void. Indefinitely postponed and withdrawn from consideration 5/7/11. No
Florida SB 1294 Specifies the public policy of this state in applying the choice of a foreign law, legal code, or system under certain circumstances. Declares that certain decisions rendered under such laws, codes, or systems are void. Approved by Senate Judiciary Committee 4/4/11. Indefinitely postponed and withdrawn from consideration 5/7/11. No
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.” Died in House Committee on Judiciary when legislature adjourned. Probably
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.” Died in House Committee on Judiciary Non-Civil when legislature adjourned. Probably
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 Died in Senate Committee on the Judiciary when legislature adjourned. Probably
Indiana HB 1078 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. Died in House Committee on Judiciary when legislature adjourned. No
Indiana SB 298 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. Died in Senate Committee on Judiciary when legislature adjourned. No
Indiana SB 520 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. Approved by full Senate 2/17/11. Died in House Committee on Judiciary when legislature adjourned. No
Indiana SJR 16 (Constitutional Amendment) Provides a court may not enforce a law, rule, or legal code or system established and either used or applied in a jurisdiction outside the states of the United States, the District of Columbia, or the territories of the United States if doing so would violate a right guaranteed by this constitution or the Constitution of the United States. Died in Senate Committee on Judiciary when legislature adjourned. No
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.” Died in House Judiciary Committee when legislature adjourned. Probably
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.” Died in House State Government Committee when legislature adjourned. Probably
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.” Died in House Judiciary Committee when legislature adjourned. Probably
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. Died in Senate Committee on Judiciary when legislature adjourned. Probably
Maine HB 811 Provides “”foreign law, legal code or system” means any law, legal code or legal system of a jurisdiction outside of any state or territory of the United States, including, but not limited to, international organizations and tribunals, that is applied by that jurisdiction’s courts, administrative bodies or other formal or informal tribunals…The primary factor that a court, administrative agency, arbitrator, mediator or other entity or person acting under the authority of state law must consider in granting comity to a decision rendered under a foreign law, legal code or legal 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 Maine or the United States Constitution or any statute or decision under those constitutions.” Rejected by Joint Committee on Judiciary 5/25/11. No
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. Probably
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. Probably
Mississippi HB 301 Prohibits courts from enforcing a foreign law if doing so would violate a right guaranteed by the Constitution of this state or of the United States. Died in House Judiciary A Committee when legislature adjourned. No
Mississippi HB 525 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.” Died in House Judiciary A Committee when legislature adjourned. No
Missouri HB 708 Provides any court, arbitration, tribunal, or administrative agency ruling or decision violates the public policy of this state and shall be void and unenforceable if such 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 constitutions of this state and the United States. Approved by full House 4/20/11. Died on House Informal Calendar when legislature adjourned. No
Missouri HB 768 Defines “foreign law” as “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.” 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.” Died in House Judiciary Committee when legislature adjourned. No
Missouri HJR 31 (Constitutional Amendment) Provides state courts “when exercising their judicial authority, shall uphold and adhere to the law as provided in the United States Constitution, the Constitution of Missouri, the United States Code, federal regulations promulgated pursuant thereto, and if necessary the law of another state of the United States, provided the law of the other state does not include Sharia law, in making judicial decisions. The courts shall not look to 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.” Died in House Judiciary Committee when legislature adjourned. No
Missouri SB 308 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…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 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.” Approved by Senate Judiciary and Civil and Criminal Jurisprudence Committee 4/28/11. Died on Senate floor when legislature adjourned. No
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. Died in Senate Judiciary Committee when legislature adjourned. Probably
New Mexico SJR 18 (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.” Died in Senate Rules Committee when legislature adjourned. No
New Jersey AB 3496 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. Carried over from 2011 session. In House Judiciary Committee. No
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.” Died in House Committee on Judiciary Subcommittee C when legislature adjourned. Possibly
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. Died in Senate Rules Committee when legislature adjourned. Probably
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.” Died in House Judiciary Committee when legislature adjourned. Probably
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.” Died in Senate Judiciary Committee when legislature adjourned. Probably
South Dakota HJR 1004 (Constitutional Amendment) Provides no South Dakota state court may apply international law, the law of any foreign nation, or any foreign religious or moral code with the force of law in the adjudication of any case under its jurisdiction. Tabled by Senate Judiciary Committee 2/17/11. No
South Dakota SB 201 Declares “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 international organizations and tribunals, and applied by that jurisdiction’s courts, administrative bodies, or other formal or informal tribunals…Any court, arbitration, tribunal, or administrative agency ruling or decision 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 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 constitutions of the United States and the State of South Dakota.” Deferred to 41st legislative day (i.e. killed) by Senate Commerce and Energy Committee 2/16/11. No
Texas HB 274 AS AMENDED: Provides “In this chapter, “foreign law” means a law, rule, or legal code of a jurisdiction outside of the states and territories of the United States…A ruling or decision of a court, arbitrator, or administrative adjudicator on a matter arising under the Family Code may not be based on a foreign law if the application of that law would violate a right guaranteed by the United States Constitution or the constitution of this state.” Approved as amended by full House 5/10/11. 4/18/11. Removed by Senate State Affairs Committee 5/23/11. No
Texas HB 911 AS AMENDED: Provides “In this chapter, “foreign law” means a law, rule, or legal code of a jurisdiction outside of the states and territories of the United States…A ruling or decision of a court, arbitrator, or administrative adjudicator on a matter arising under the Family Code may not be based on a foreign law if the application of that law would violate a right guaranteed by the United States Constitution or the constitution of this state.” Approved as amended by House Committee on Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence 4/18/11. Died in House Calendars Committee when legislature adjourned. No
Texas HB 999 Declares “”foreign law” means a law, rule, or legal code of a jurisdiction outside of the states and territories of the United States…A ruling or decision of a court, arbitrator, or administrative adjudicator may not be based on a foreign law if the application of that law would violate a right guaranteed by the United States Constitution or the constitution of this state.” Died in House State Affairs Committee when legislature adjourned. No
Texas HB 1240 Declares “”foreign or international law or doctrine” means a law, rule, legal code, or principle of a jurisdiction outside of the states and territories of the United States, including international law, that is not codified or recognized by this state or the United States…A court, arbitrator, or administrative adjudicator may not base a ruling or decision on a foreign or international law or doctrine; or a prior ruling or decision that was based on a foreign or international law or doctrine.” Approved by House Select Committee on State Sovereignty 5/10/11. Died in House Calendars Committee when legislature adjourned. No
Texas HB 3027 Declares “”foreign law” means a law, rule, or legal code of a jurisdiction outside of the states and territories of the United States…A ruling or decision of a court, arbitrator, or administrative adjudicator may not be based on a foreign law if the application of that law would violate a right guaranteed by the United States Constitution or the constitution of this state.”. Died in House Committee on Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence when legislature adjourned. No
Texas HJR 57 (Constitutional Amendment) Provides “A court of this state shall uphold the laws of the Constitution of the United States, this Constitution, federal laws, and laws of this state. A court of this state may not enforce, consider, or apply any religious or cultural law.” Died in House State Affairs Committee when legislature adjourned. No
Texas HB 79A (Special Session) AS AMENDED: Provides “In this chapter, “foreign law” means a law, rule, or legal code of a jurisdiction outside of the states and territories of the United States…A ruling or decision of a court, arbitrator, or administrative adjudicator on a matter arising under the Family Code may not be based on a foreign law if the application of that law would violate a right guaranteed by the United States Constitution or the constitution of this state.” Approved as amended by full House 6/22/11. Removed by Senate Jurisprudence Committee 6/27/11. No
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.” Died in House Judiciary Committee when legislature adjourned. Possibly
Wyoming HJR 8 (Constitutional Amendment) Prohibits court use of sharia law. Prohibits Wyoming courts from referencing law of other U.S. states if law of the other state does include sharia law. Requires Wyoming courts uphold and adhere to the law as provided in the constitution of the United States, the Wyoming constitution, the United States Code and federal regulations promulgated pursuant thereto, laws of this state, and established common law as specified by legislative enactment. Prohibits courts from considering the legal precepts of other nations or cultures including, without limitation, international law and Sharia law. Died in House Judiciary Committee when legislature adjourned. No

2010

Bill Provisions Status
Arizona HB 2379 Enacts the “Arizona Foreign Decisions Act” Declares the acceptance of Arizona into the Union was a “compact”. Declares “Congress has no authority to preempt state regulation of state courts.” Prohibits courts from implementing, referring or incorporating or using “a tenet of any body of religious sectarian law” and specifically includes sharia law, canon law, halacha and karma, but exempts decisions based on Anglo-American legal tradition, laws or case law from Great Britain prior enactment of the statute, or the definition of marriage as between one man and one woman, “and the principles on which the United States was founded.” Prohibits use of any case law or statute from a non-U.S. jurisdiction or “foreign body”, including the United Nations. Decisions that make use of a body of religious sectarian law or foreign law declared void and usages declared to be grounds for impeachment. Declares these provisions apply to Federal courts sitting in diversity jurisdiction. Requires any court that construes this statute must do so in a way to confine the power of Congress and the federal judiciary. Died in House Judiciary Committee.
Arizona SB 1026 Enacts the “Arizona Foreign Decisions Act” Declares the acceptance of Arizona into the Union was a “compact”. Declares “Congress has no authority to preempt state regulation of state courts.” Prohibits courts from implementing, referring or incorporating or using “a tenet of any body of religious sectarian law” and specifically includes sharia law, canon law, halacha and karma, but exempts decisions based on Anglo-American legal tradition, laws or case law from Great Britain prior enactment of the statute, or the definition of marriage as between one man and one woman, “and the principles on which the United States was founded.” Prohibits use of any case law or statute from a non-U.S. jurisdiction or “foreign body”, including the United Nations. Decisions that make use of a body of religious sectarian law or foreign law declared void and usages declared to be grounds for impeachment. Declares these provisions apply to Federal courts sitting in diversity jurisdiction. Requires any court that construes this statute must do so in a way to confine the power of Congress and the federal judiciary. Died in House Judiciary Committee.
Florida SB 1962 AMENDED: Directs courts to consider as a “primary factor” the preservation of a person’s constitutional rights, when interpreting, enforcing, or applying any foreign court decision, choice of foreign law contract provision, or choice of foreign venue or forum contract provision that violates any right guaranteed by the Florida Constitution or the U.S. Constitution. Provides that it is the public policy of the state that a court consider as a primary factor in granting comity to a decision rendered under any foreign law, legal code, or system against a natural person in Florida, whether the decision rendered violates or would violate any constitutional right of that person. Requires a court to deny a claim for forum non conveniens if the granting of such claim would likely violate the constitutional rights of the non-claimant. Provides an exception for application of the bill to corporations, partnerships, or other business associations and provides a severability clause. Approved by Senate Commerce Committee 4/7/10. Died in Senate Committee on Judiciary.
Idaho HCR 44 Declares “For any domestic issue, no court should consider or use as precedent any foreign or international law, regulation, or court decision.” Approved by full House 3/4/10. Approved by full Senate 3/26/10. Transmitted to Secretary of State for transmission to Congress, the President, and the other states.
Iowa HB 2313 Prohibits judges from using “judicial precedent, case law, penumbras, or international law as a basis for rulings.” Requires judges use only the U.S. and Iowa Constitutions and the Code of Iowa in making decisions. Permits use of the Federalist papers and other writings of the founding fathers, but only “if such source material is used in full context. Prohibits any court from reviewing the legislation. Deems any violation of the act grounds for impeachment. Died in House Judiciary Committee.
Louisiana HB 785 “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. Signed into law by Governor 6/29/10.
Louisiana SB 460 “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. Signed into law by Governor 7/2/10.
New Jersey AB 3496 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. Died in House Judiciary Committee. Carried over into 2011 session.
Oklahoma HJR 1056 (Constitutional Amendment) Prohibits the courts to “look to the legal precepts of other nations or cultures. Specifically, the courts shall not consider Sharia Law or international law.” Requires courts adhere only to the U.S. & Oklahoma Constitutions, federal and state law and regulations, and where necessary the laws and regulations of another state. Approved by voters in November 2010 election.
South Carolina SB 1387 (Constitutional Amendment) Requires South Carolina Courts uphold and adhere to the law as provided in the United States Constitution, the South Carolina Constitution, the United States Code and federal regulations promulgated pursuant to it, and the South Carolina statutes and rules adopted and regulations promulgated pursuant to it, and in doing so, shall rely only on those sources, and if necessary for the determination of a particular case, the laws, rules, regulations, and cases of another state of the United States, in making judicial decisions. Prohibits courts from looking to the legal precepts of other nations or cultures. Specifically, the courts shall not consider Sharia Law, international law, the constitutions, laws, rules, regulations, and decisions of courts or tribunals of other nations, or conventions or treaties, whether or not the United States is a party. Died in Senate Judiciary Committee.
Tennessee HB 3768 Defines “law, legal code, or legal system” means a law, legal code, or legal system used or applied in any jurisdiction outside of Tennessee, including any foreign state, jurisdiction, country or territory of the United States…Notwithstanding any law to the contrary, and subject to provisions of superseding federal treaties, any otherwise enforceable contract which incorporates any substantive or procedural law, legal code or legal system of another state, foreign jurisdiction or foreign country that would violate rights and privileges granted under the United States or Tennessee Constitution is declared to be against public policy of this state and is unenforceable
in this state.		 Signed into law by Governor 5/27/10.
Tennessee SB 3740 Defines “law, legal code, or legal system” means a law, legal code, or legal system used or applied in any jurisdiction outside of Tennessee, including any foreign state, jurisdiction, country or territory of the United States…Notwithstanding any law to the contrary, and subject to provisions of superseding federal treaties, any otherwise enforceable contract which incorporates any substantive or procedural law, legal code or legal system of another state, foreign jurisdiction or foreign country that would violate rights and privileges granted under the United States or Tennessee Constitution is declared to be against public policy of this state and is unenforceable
in this state.		 Replaced by HB 3768.
Utah HB 296 Requires Utah courts to apply United States and Utah law in cases and controversies before them unless the foreign law sought to be applied would provide protection equal to or stronger than specific elements of United States and Utah law. Approved by House Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice Committee 2/25/10. Died on House floor.
]]> http://gaveltogavel.us/site/2011/10/03/bans-on-court-use-of-shariainternational-law-list-of-all-bills-since-2010-new-2011-michigan-bill-first-2012-bill-prefiled/feed/ 5 2011 Southern indigent defense legislation http://gaveltogavel.us/site/2011/09/14/2011-southern-indigent-defense-legislation/ http://gaveltogavel.us/site/2011/09/14/2011-southern-indigent-defense-legislation/#comments Wed, 14 Sep 2011 14:32:59 +0000 Bill Raftery http://gaveltogavel.us/site/?p=2826 Law

Alabama HB 601 / SB 440 Repeals all existing laws with respect to indigent defense. Redefines “indigent defendant.” Provides for the unified administration of indigent defense services by the state. Ends practice of providing for indigent defense through the local presiding circuit judge, commission, or governing body administering the system. Creates statewide Office of Indigent Defense Services within the Finance Department and indigent defense advisory boards in each judicial circuit.

Arkansas HB 1004 Prohibits payment of attorney’s fees of privately retained attorneys for indigent persons.

Arkansas HB 2207 Provides funding for public defenders may come from a county’s administration of justice, general, public defender, indigent defense, or public defender investigator fund(s), or any other fund authorized by law for that purpose. Requires expenditures comply with an itemized, line-item budget.

Louisiana HB 178 Authorizes Dept. of Children and Family Services to transfer funds appropriated pursuant to existing law to unspecified entities for representation of children and indigent parents in child protection proceedings. Removes require that funds go only to those entities specified in existing law.

Mississippi HB 1302 / SB 2563 Consolidates Office of Capital Defense Counsel, Office of Indigent Appeals and Division of Public Defender Training into Office of State Public Defender. Repeals provision that Circuit Court may appoint local counsel in capital cases at the expense of the Capital Defense Counsel Special Fund.

Mississippi HB 506 Permits all public defenders to carry firearms in courthouses. (See also HB 881)

Mississippi HB 332 / SB 2697 Extends Public Defender Task Force until 2014.

Texas HB 1754 / SB 170 Creates within judicial branch the Texas Indigent Defense Commission. Transfers all powers and duties of Task Force on Indigent Defense  to Commission and abolishes Task Force. Designates Commission a permanent standing committee of the Texas Judicial Council and administratively attached to the Office of Court Administration, but provides commission is to prepare, approve, and submit a Legislative Appropriations Request and maintain a budget structure separate from that of OCA. Establishes membership of governing board of the Commission. Sets sunset date for commission as September 2023. Requires certain indigent defense information to be submitted by November 1st of each odd numbered year. Requires each law school receiving innocence project funding to submit annual reports regarding exonerations in criminal cases. Amends the Code of Criminal Procedure relating to the creation of public defender’s offices. Defines and authorizes local jurisdictions to establish managed assigned counsel programs as strictly a local option that would require both the judges and county commissioners court assent to implement. Repeals the “Indigent Representation Fund”, the court costs for which serve as a revenue stream to the Fair Defense Account, which serves the same purpose.

Texas HB 3323 / SB 1308 Allows for the review of attorneys who are no longer eligible to represent indigent defendants in capital cases due to a single finding of ineffective counsel. Provides determination will be made by the Regional Selection Committee, which includes an administrative law judge, a district judge, a representative from the local bar association, and a board-certified criminal attorney.

Adopted Resolution

Texas HCR 22 (Special Session) Commends the members of the Texas Supreme Court for their actions in support of legal aid services and honors them for their work in promoting access to justice for the state’s most vulnerable citizens.

Active/Carried over into 2012

Oklahoma SB 868 Specifies Indigent Defense System is only for indigents who are in custody. Provides a court may appoint legal representation for an indigent who is not in custody, in which case costs for such representation shall be paid from the local court fund.

Oklahoma HB 2175 Restricts use of the Oklahoma Indigent Defense System to defendants who are in custody. Provides a definition for “unable to employ counsel”.

Tennessee HB 1225 / SB 1279 Provides that if an attorney, post-conviction defender or district public defender in a criminal case is found to have provided ineffective assistance of counsel, that attorney cannot receive any further state funds for legal services until the attorney obtains continuing education, counseling or training that addresses the reason for the attorney being ineffective.

Tennessee HB 1623 / SB 1574 Removes the requirement that the Executive Director of the District Public Defenders Conference (DPDC) administer the accounts of the judicial branch of government relating to the DPDC; prepare, approve, and submit budget estimates and appropriations necessary for the maintenance and operation of the offices of district public defenders; approve all requisitions for the payment of public moneys appropriated for the maintenance and operation of the judicial branch of government; audit claims, and prepare vouchers for payment; and provide the district public defenders with minimum law libraries.

Approved by one chamber

Louisiana SB 270 Provides 10% of revenue generated from abandoned cars sold by court as result of littering conviction go toward indigent defender board. Approved by full Senate and House Natural Resources and Environment committee. Indefinitely postponed on House floor.

Mississippi SB 2945 Specifies public defender is authorized to assign the duties of all employees of the office without regard to the source of funding for those employees. Approved by full Senate, died in House Judiciary B committee.

Texas SB 1682 Authorizes the creation of a managed assigned counsel program by a locality with written approval of a judge of the juvenile court of a county or county court, statutory county court, or district court trying criminal cases. Approved by full Senate and House Criminal Jurisprudence committee. Died on House floor.

Died in committee

Arkansas HB 2146 Defines crime of “illegal disbursement of funds by a judge”. Makes illegal instances where judge makes payments for services rendered to a public defender, assistant public defender, prosecuting attorney, or deputy prosecuting attorney resulting from the exercise of that person’s official duties.

Arkansas SB 941 Provides public defenders must provide itemized bill with a detailed explanation of services rendered, time spent, and expenses incurred. Renames converts certificates of indigency into affidavits to be created by public defender commission. Increases from $100 to $250 maximum user fee payable to commission.

Arkansas SB 974 Designates public defender commission a criminal justice agency for purposes of access to the Arkansas Crime Information Center.

Mississippi HB 181 Sets hourly payment for indigent defense counsel as 80% of the hourly rate allowed in the Mississippi’s federal courts. Provides judge presiding in case may adjust the total requested payment to counsel in a case if the court finds that the number of hours claimed by counsel in that case is not reasonable.

Mississippi HB 153 Creates District Public Defender Pilot project.

Mississippi HB 978 Provides public defender salaries are to be same as county prosecutors.

Mississippi SB 2971 Authorizes loan forgiveness programs for education loans to encourage law students and other attorneys to choose careers in the area of public interest, including specifically public defenders and civil legal aid attorneys.

Texas HB 1475 Provides for longevity pay for assistant public defenders.

Texas HB 1392 Creates special $95 fee for sale of property at a foreclosure sale to pay for civil legal services to the indigent.

Texas HB 2174 / SB 726 Establishes judicial access and improvement account to provide funding for basic civil legal services, indigent defense, and judicial technical support through certain county service fees and court costs imposed to fund the account. (See also Special Session HB 34 / SB 23)

Texas HB 1918 / SB 1028 Requires a district court judge to appoint one attorney, rather than two, when a capital felony case is filed. Provides in cases where prosecutors do not seek the death penalty a second attorney will not be required to be appointed.

]]> http://gaveltogavel.us/site/2011/09/14/2011-southern-indigent-defense-legislation/feed/ 0 State-by-State 2011 Legislative Year in Review: Mississippi http://gaveltogavel.us/site/2011/08/23/state-by-state-2011-legislative-year-in-review-mississippi/ http://gaveltogavel.us/site/2011/08/23/state-by-state-2011-legislative-year-in-review-mississippi/#comments Tue, 23 Aug 2011 14:00:24 +0000 Bill Raftery http://gaveltogavel.us/site/?p=2640 New laws, plus two resolutions, affecting the courts enacted or adopted by the Mississippi legislature in 2011 include the following:

HB 193 Provides governing authorities of any municipality or board of supervisors for a county in the state may donate funds from county treasury to any chapter of Court Appointed Special Advocates, up to a specified maximum.

HB 224 Provides court having jurisdiction over a person for a matter before the court shall have the final determination about whether the person may participate in drug court.

HB 490 Exempts from new competency examination all sitting justice court judges.

HB 506 Allows all prosecutors, public defenders, and others holding a firearms license and having taking a specified court to carry a firearm into any courthouse except in courtrooms during a judicial proceeding.

HB 773 Establishes procedure where a single candidate has qualified for election to judicial office but dies, resigns, or is otherwise disqualified prior to the general election.

HB 852 Permits U.S. District Judge or Magistrate Judge for Northern or Southern District of Mississippi to admit law students to limited practice in any state or federal court in Mississippi.

HB 881 Allows all prosecutors, public defenders, and others holding a firearms license and having taking a specified court to carry a firearm into any courthouse except in courtrooms during a judicial proceeding. (Other provisions in bill make it similar but not identical to HB 506).

SB 2554 Revises existing law requiring searchable website for all state expenditures. Redefines “agency” as “all elective offices in the executive, legislative and judicial branches of state government” but specifically not “counties or municipalities.”

HR 81 Commends Mississippi Drug Court Program for saving lives and saving money for Mississippi taxpayers.

HR 86 Recognizes and commends drug court graduates upon successful completion of the program.

]]> http://gaveltogavel.us/site/2011/08/23/state-by-state-2011-legislative-year-in-review-mississippi/feed/ 0 2011 Southern bail/pretrial release legislation http://gaveltogavel.us/site/2011/08/17/southern-bail-legislation/ http://gaveltogavel.us/site/2011/08/17/southern-bail-legislation/#comments Wed, 17 Aug 2011 17:10:33 +0000 Bill Raftery http://gaveltogavel.us/site/?p=2523 Law

Alabama HB 56 Requires determination if defendant is unlawfully present in U.S. prior to bail determination and, if determined not lawfully present, denial of bail. (see also SB 256).

Kentucky HB 463 / SB 161 Establishes pretrial release and considerations for persons based on risk of flight and danger before trial and require credit toward bail based on time spent in jail before trial. Requires the Supreme Court to create guidelines for judges to use when considering pretrial release and monitored conditional release. Directs the courts to develop guidelines for pretrial release decision making, and directs judges to use these guidelines in making those decisions. Requires those on pretrial release to use GPS monitoring. Provides a maximum bail is not to exceed the amount of fine and court costs for specified crimes. Requires Department of Corrections to provide training on evidence-based practices to employees of pretrial services.

Louisiana HB 216 Provides failure to to make probable cause determination within 48 hours of arrest, resulting in release, does not preclude the defendant’s rearrest and resetting of bond for the same offense or offenses upon the issuance of an arrest warrant based upon a finding of probable cause by a magistrate.

Mississippi SB 2239 Clarifies that domestic violence bail bond fee is to be refunded to defendant who is not finally convicted.

Oklahoma HB 1347 Creates Wildlife Bail Procedure Act, setting procedures for persons arrested for violation of any section of the Oklahoma Wildlife Conservation Code.

Tennessee HB 703 / SB 861 Directs that a defendant released on a pre-trial bond continue on release pending the trial under the same terms and conditions unless the court determines other terms and conditions or termination of the bond is necessary. Authorizes a court to revoke a defendant’s bond and order defendant held without bail pending trial if the defendant violates a release condition; is charged with an offense committed during release; or engages in conduct that obstructs the orderly and expeditious progress of the trial or other proceedings.

Tennessee HB 718 / SB 1269 Provides, in certain DUI-related cases,defendant may not be released with another bail “until the judge or judicial commissioner sets conditions on the bond to attempt to eliminate the danger posed by the defendant” instead of “unless the court first determines the defendant is no longer a danger to the community.”

Tennessee HB 962 / SB 802 Directs issuance of a capias warrant for a criminal defendant who forfeits bond. If circumstances require, authorizes use of a duplicate copy of the capias until a certified copy of the capias can be obtained from the clerk’s office.

Texas HB 1070 / SB 972 Allows a county jailer to take a defendant’s bail bond.

Texas HB 1658 Specifies that a defendant may be refunded a bail bond on order of the court and only after the defendant complies with the conditions of the bond.

Texas HB 1822 Specifically authorizes a partial release of security when the amount of security remaining would meet certain requirements.

Texas HB 1823 Harmonizes provisions related to bail bond business in Code of Criminal Procedure with related provisions under the Occupations Code.

Texas HB 3077 / SB 877 Requires a sheriff, prosecuting attorney, or clerk of the court to verify an affidavit from a surety stating the accused is in custody of another governmental entity before discharging the surety’s liability on a bail bond. Requires a sheriff to place a detainer on the accused and notify both appropriate officials in the jurisdiction in which the accused is incarcerated and the court or magistrate for which prosecution is pending. Requires magistrate then direct the court to issue a capias for the arrest of the accused if deemed necessary.

Introduced with committee and/or floor approval

Tennessee HB 1312 / SB 1862 Removes the requirement that a court determine whether a defendant is a danger to the community prior to releasing the defendant on bail for being charged with vehicular assault, vehicular homicide or driving under the influence.

Tennessee HB 1380 / SB 780 Specifies that when determining the amount of bail, if it is determined that the defendant is unlawfully present in the United States, then there would be a presumption that the defendant is a flight risk.

Texas HB 770 Enhances the penalty for bail jumping and failure to appear as a condition of being released from custody from a Class A misdemeanor to a felony of the first degree if the offense for which the actor’s appearance was required is an offense of murder or capital murder.

Texas HB 875 Requires the sheriff or other officer to notify the judge or magistrate authorized to grant or deny the defendant’s release on bail if the sheriff or officer determines that the defendant was not lawfully admitted to the United States or, although lawfully admitted, the defendant’s lawful status has expired. Requires the Commission on Jail Standards to prepare and issue guidelines and procedures to ensure compliance with these provisions. Establishes a rebuttable presumption at any proceeding before the judge or magistrate concerning the defendant’s release on bail that the defendant presents a risk of flight from prosecution if a sheriff or other officer notifies a judge or magistrate that a defendant was not lawfully admitted to the United States or that, although lawfully admitted, the defendant’s lawful status has expired.

Texas HB 1784 Allows a court to refund any cash funds to a defendant after the defendant complies with the bond conditions. Allows a defendant, as part of a plea bargain or deferred prosecution agreement, to request funds to be withheld for outstanding fines, court costs, or amounts of restitution, but not to repay attorney’s fees.

Texas HJR 86 (Constitutional Amendment) Denies bail to certain persons who are unlawfully present in the United States and are taken into custody for committing a felony.

Texas HJR 98 (Constitutional Amendment) Denies bail to certain persons charged with a violent or sexual offense after having been previously convicted of a violent or sexual offense.

Texas SB 878 Prohibits a court or a magistrate from authorizing a defendant to deposit cash less than the full amount of bail set by the court or magistrate, nor require money or other security as a condition of bond for release.

Introduced with committee rejection

Alabama HB 481 / SB 276 Requires as condition for bail after an arrest for a second or subsequent DUI violation that a defendant have an ignition interlock device installed.

Alabama SB 291 Requires as condition for bail after an arrest for DUI violation that a defendant have an ignition interlock device installed.

Tennessee HB 1501 / SB 1987 Makes a person who is charged with sexual exploitation of a minor ineligible for suspension of prosecution and pretrial diversion.

Texas HB 1686 Require a judge or magistrate in whose court a criminal action is pending to discharge a surety’s liability on a bail bond under the following conditions: the surety files with the judge or magistrate an affidavit stating that more than five years have elapsed since the date on which the surety posted the bond, that the surety no longer wishes to be a surety on the bond, and that the surety will give the prosecuting attorney notice of the affidavit; and the surety gives such notice of the affidavit to the prosecuting attorney. Requires a judge or magistrate who discharges a surety’s liability in that manner, if an indictment or information remains pending against the defendant, to issue a capias for the defendant.

Introduced with other or no activity

Alabama HB 481 Requires as condition for bail after an arrest for a second or subsequent DUI violation that a defendant have an ignition interlock device installed.

Arkansas HB 1245 Modifies existing law regarding issuance of warrants for failure to appear for those held on bond. Provides a judgment entered when the defendant has been surrendered, apprehended, or arrested within one hundred twenty (120) days of receipt of written notification to the surety of the defendant’s failure to appear is void.

Arkansas HB 1246 Permits financing of bail bonds.

Arkansas HB 2169 “Affirmatively clarifies” financing of bail bonds is prohibited.

Mississippi HB 54 Establishes rebuttable presumption defendant presents a risk of flight if not lawfully admitted to the United States.

Mississippi HB 1266 Imposes a 1% increase on fee charged for bail bonds to be deposited in the State Treasury for Department of Mental Health.

Mississippi HCR 14 Prohibits issuance of bail for sex offenses.

Mississippi SB 2474 Clarifies procedures by which ail is set by municipal court. Provides bail set is payable to municipality.

Mississippi SB 2505 In cases of domestic violence, requires Protective Order Registry be checked before granting bail on another charge.

Oklahoma SB 705 Changes numerous laws with respect to personal recognizance, forfeiture of bail, release on personal recognizance, posting bail, and suspension of driving privilege. Modifies certain arraignment requirements. Removes requirement for release on personal recognizance under specified circumstances.

Tennessee HB 1578 / SB 770 Specifies that when determining the amount of bail, if it is determined that the defendant is unlawfully present in the United States, then there would be a presumption that the defendant is a flight risk.

Texas HB 168 Requires that a bail bond state an expiration date of not later than the third anniversary of the date the principal signed the bond.

Texas HB 532 Establishes a rebuttable presumption at any proceeding before the judge or magistrate concerning the defendant’s release on bail that the defendant presents a risk of flight from prosecution if a sheriff or other officer notifies a judge or magistrate that a defendant was not lawfully admitted to the United States or that, although lawfully admitted, the defendant’s lawful status has expired.

Texas HB 2467 Authorizes a surety to relieve the surety of the surety’s undertaking by delivering an affidavit to the prosecuting attorney and the county court clerk stating that the accused is incarcerated, unless the accused is not a United States citizen and is unlawfully present in the United States.

Texas SB 881 Allows a defendant and a defendant’s sureties to be exonerated from liability upon forfeiture if before the final judgment, there was a death of the principal or the principal was deported from the United States.

Texas SB 909 Relating to the discharge of a surety’s liability on a bail bond in a criminal case.

]]> http://gaveltogavel.us/site/2011/08/17/southern-bail-legislation/feed/ 0 Bans on court use of sharia/international law: ABA House of Delegates opposes “blanket prohibitions”, state legislatures out of session http://gaveltogavel.us/site/2011/08/08/bans-on-court-use-of-shariainternational-law-aba-house-of-delegates-opposes-blanket-prohibitions-state-legislatures-out-of-session/ http://gaveltogavel.us/site/2011/08/08/bans-on-court-use-of-shariainternational-law-aba-house-of-delegates-opposes-blanket-prohibitions-state-legislatures-out-of-session/#comments Mon, 08 Aug 2011 22:19:58 +0000 Bill Raftery http://gaveltogavel.us/site/?p=2470 This post has been updated. Click here.

Earlier today, the American Bar Association House of Delegates approved Resolution 113A:

RESOLVED, That the American Bar Association opposes federal or state laws imposing blanket prohibitions on consideration or use by courts or arbitral tribunals of foreign or international law.

FURTHER RESOLVED, That the American Bar Association opposes federal or state laws imposing blanket prohibitions on consideration or use by courts or arbitral tribunals of the entire body of law or doctrine of a particular religion.

Clearly geared towards efforts to ban court use of sharia/international law, the resolution comes at a time when the state legislatures are out of session and silent. Since the July update, no legislative activity has occurred, although the Michigan bill remains technically pending (the legislature sits year-round).

Full roster of 49 bills introduced in 2011 in 22 states and their statuses after the jump.

Bill Provisions Status
Alabama HB 597 (Constitutional Amendment) Provides “the courts…when exercising their judicial authority, shall uphold and adhere to the law as provided in the United States Constitution, the Constitution of Alabama of 1901, the United States Code, federal regulations promulgated pursuant thereto, established common law, the Code of Alabama 1975, and rules promulgated thereto, and if necessary the law of another state of the United States, provided the law of the other state does not include Sharia, in making judicial decisions. The courts shall not look to the legal precepts of other nations or cultures. Specifically, the courts shall not consider international law or Sharia. The provisions of this subsection shall apply to all cases before the respective courts including, but not limited to, cases of first impression.” Died in House Committee on Judiciary when legislature adjourned.
Alabama HB 607 (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.” Died in House Committee on Judiciary when legislature adjourned.
Alabama SB 61 (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 3/24/11. Died on Senate floor when legislature adjourned.
Alabama SB 62 (Constitutional Amendment) Provides Alabama courts “when exercising their judicial authority, shall uphold and adhere to the law as provided in the United States Constitution, the Constitution of Alabama of 1901, the United States Code, federal regulations promulgated pursuant thereto, established common law, the Code of Alabama 1975, and rules promulgated thereto, and if necessary the law of another state of the United States, provided the law of the other state does not include Sharia, in making judicial decisions. The courts shall not look to the legal precepts of other nations or cultures. Specifically, the courts shall not consider international law or Sharia. The provisions of this subsection shall apply to all cases before the respective courts including, but not limited to, cases of first impression.” Approved by Senate Committee on Judiciary 3/24/11. Died on Senate floor when legislature adjourned.
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. Died in House Finance Committee when legislature adjourned.
Arizona HB 2064 Defines “foreign law” as “any law, rule or legal code or system other than the constitution, laws and ratified treaties of the united states and the territories of the united states, or the constitution and laws of this state….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 or conflict with the laws of the united states or of this state.” Signed into law by governor 4/12/11.
Arizona HB 2582 Enacts the “Arizona Foreign Decisions Act” Declares the acceptance of Arizona into the Union was a “compact”. Declares “Congress has no authority to preempt state regulation of state courts.” Prohibits courts from implementing, referring or incorporating or using “a tenet of any body of religious sectarian law” and specifically includes sharia law, canon law, halacha and karma, but exempts decisions based on Anglo-American legal tradition, laws or case law from Great Britain prior enactment of the statute, or the definition of marriage as between one man and one woman, “and the principles on which the United States was founded.” Prohibits use of any case law or statute from a non-U.S. jurisdiction or “foreign body”, including the United Nations. Decisions that make use of a body of religious sectarian law or foreign law declared void and usages declared to be grounds for impeachment. Declares these provisions apply to Federal courts sitting in diversity jurisdiction. Requires any court that construes this statute must do so in a way to confine the power of Congress and the federal judiciary. Approved by House Judiciary Committee 2/17/11. Died in House Rules Committee when legislature adjourned.
Arizona HCR 2033 (Constitutional Amendment) Provides state’s courts shall not consider, enforce or otherwise incorporate into any decision on the merits the legal precepts of other nations or cultures that run counter to the laws of this state unless expressly ratified by bicameralism and presentment in the state legislature or duly ratified as a treaty by the Senate of the United States. Provides state courts shall uphold and adhere to the law as provided in the United States Constitution, the Constitution of this state, The United States Code, federal regulations adopted pursuant to the United States code, established common law, the laws of this state and rules adopted pursuant to the laws of this state and, if necessary, the laws of another state of the United States provided the law of the other state does not incorporate directly or by reference international law or the precepts of nations or cultures. Died in House when legislature adjourned.
Arizona SCR 1010 (Constitutional Amendment) Requires courts, when making judicial decisions, to uphold and adhere to the laws of the U.S. Constitution, Arizona Constitution, U.S. Code, Federal regulations, established common law, Arizona laws and rules and if necessary, the laws of another state within the U.S. provided the laws in the other state do not include international law. Prohibits Arizona courts from considering international law or legal precepts of other nations or cultures when making judicial decisions. Died in Senate Committee on Judiciary when legislature adjourned.
Arkansas SJR 10 (Constitutional Amendment) (Placeholder bill) Declares “The purpose of this Senate Joint Resolution is to amend the Arkansas Constitution concerning the application of foreign laws, legal codes, or systems for the purpose of protecting rights and privileges granted under the United States Constitution and the Arkansas Constitution.” Died in Senate Committee on State Agencies and Governmental Affairs when legislature adjourned.
Arkansas SB 97 Prohibits 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 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 Constitution and the Arkansas Constitution Died in Senate Committee on Judiciary when legislature adjourned.
Florida HB 1273 Defines term “foreign law, legal code, or system”; specifies public policy of this state in applying choice of foreign law, legal code, or system. Declares that certain decisions rendered under such laws, codes, or systems are void. Indefinitely postponed and withdrawn from consideration 5/7/11.
Florida SB 1294 Specifies the public policy of this state in applying the choice of a foreign law, legal code, or system under certain circumstances. Declares that certain decisions rendered under such laws, codes, or systems are void. Approved by Senate Judiciary Committee 4/4/11. Indefinitely postponed and withdrawn from consideration 5/7/11.
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.” Died in House Committee on Judiciary 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.” Died in House Committee on Judiciary Non-Civil 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 Died in Senate Committee on the Judiciary when legislature adjourned.
Indiana HB 1078 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. Died in House Committee on Judiciary when legislature adjourned.
Indiana SB 298 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. Died in Senate Committee on Judiciary when legislature adjourned.
Indiana SB 520 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. Approved by full Senate 2/17/11. Died in House Committee on Judiciary when legislature adjourned.
Indiana SJR 16 (Constitutional Amendment) Provides a court may not enforce a law, rule, or legal code or system established and either used or applied in a jurisdiction outside the states of the United States, the District of Columbia, or the territories of the United States if doing so would violate a right guaranteed by this constitution or the Constitution of the United States. Died in Senate Committee on Judiciary when legislature adjourned.
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.” Died in House Judiciary Committee when legislature adjourned.
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.” Died in House State Government Committee when legislature adjourned.
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.” Died in House Judiciary Committee when legislature adjourned.
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. Died in Senate Committee on Judiciary when legislature adjourned.
Maine HB 811 Provides “”foreign law, legal code or system” means any law, legal code or legal system of a jurisdiction outside of any state or territory of the United States, including, but not limited to, international organizations and tribunals, that is applied by that jurisdiction’s courts, administrative bodies or other formal or informal tribunals…The primary factor that a court, administrative agency, arbitrator, mediator or other entity or person acting under the authority of state law must consider in granting comity to a decision rendered under a foreign law, legal code or legal 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 Maine or the United States Constitution or any statute or decision under those constitutions.” Rejected by Joint Committee on Judiciary 5/25/11.
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.
Mississippi HB 301 Prohibits courts from enforcing a foreign law if doing so would violate a right guaranteed by the Constitution of this state or of the United States. Died in House Judiciary A Committee when legislature adjourned.
Mississippi HB 525 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.” Died in House Judiciary A Committee when legislature adjourned.
Missouri HB 708 Provides any court, arbitration, tribunal, or administrative agency ruling or decision violates the public policy of this state and shall be void and unenforceable if such 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 constitutions of this state and the United States. Approved by full House 4/20/11. Died on House Informal Calendar when legislature adjourned.
Missouri HB 768 Defines “foreign law” as “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.” 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.” Died in House Judiciary Committee when legislature adjourned.
Missouri HJR 31 (Constitutional Amendment) Provides state courts “when exercising their judicial authority, shall uphold and adhere to the law as provided in the United States Constitution, the Constitution of Missouri, the United States Code, federal regulations promulgated pursuant thereto, and if necessary the law of another state of the United States, provided the law of the other state does not include Sharia law, in making judicial decisions. The courts shall not look to 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.” Died in House Judiciary Committee when legislature adjourned.
Missouri SB 308 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…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 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.” Approved by Senate Judiciary and Civil and Criminal Jurisprudence Committee 4/28/11. Died on Senate floor when legislature adjourned.
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. Died in Senate Judiciary Committee when legislature adjourned.
New Mexico SJR 18 (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.” Died in Senate Rules Committee 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.” Died in House Committee on Judiciary Subcommittee C when legislature adjourned.
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. Died in Senate Rules Committee when legislature adjourned.
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.” Died in House Judiciary Committee when legislature adjourned.
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.” Died in Senate Judiciary Committee when legislature adjourned.
South Dakota HJR 1004 (Constitutional Amendment) Provides no South Dakota state court may apply international law, the law of any foreign nation, or any foreign religious or moral code with the force of law in the adjudication of any case under its jurisdiction. Tabled by Senate Judiciary Committee 2/17/11.
South Dakota SB 201 Declares “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 international organizations and tribunals, and applied by that jurisdiction’s courts, administrative bodies, or other formal or informal tribunals…Any court, arbitration, tribunal, or administrative agency ruling or decision 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 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 constitutions of the United States and the State of South Dakota.” Deferred to 41st legislative day (i.e. killed) by Senate Commerce and Energy Committee 2/16/11.
Texas HB 274 AS AMENDED: Provides “In this chapter, “foreign law” means a law, rule, or legal code of a jurisdiction outside of the states and territories of the United States…A ruling or decision of a court, arbitrator, or administrative adjudicator on a matter arising under the Family Code may not be based on a foreign law if the application of that law would violate a right guaranteed by the United States Constitution or the constitution of this state.” Approved as amended by full House 5/10/11. 4/18/11. Removed by Senate State Affairs Committee 5/23/11.
Texas HB 911 AS AMENDED: Provides “In this chapter, “foreign law” means a law, rule, or legal code of a jurisdiction outside of the states and territories of the United States…A ruling or decision of a court, arbitrator, or administrative adjudicator on a matter arising under the Family Code may not be based on a foreign law if the application of that law would violate a right guaranteed by the United States Constitution or the constitution of this state.” Approved as amended by House Committee on Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence 4/18/11. Died in House Calendars Committee when legislature adjourned.
Texas HB 999 Declares “”foreign law” means a law, rule, or legal code of a jurisdiction outside of the states and territories of the United States…A ruling or decision of a court, arbitrator, or administrative adjudicator may not be based on a foreign law if the application of that law would violate a right guaranteed by the United States Constitution or the constitution of this state.” Died in House State Affairs Committee when legislature adjourned.
Texas HB 1240 Declares “”foreign or international law or doctrine” means a law, rule, legal code, or principle of a jurisdiction outside of the states and territories of the United States, including international law, that is not codified or recognized by this state or the United States…A court, arbitrator, or administrative adjudicator may not base a ruling or decision on a foreign or international law or doctrine; or a prior ruling or decision that was based on a foreign or international law or doctrine.” Approved by House Select Committee on State Sovereignty 5/10/11. Died in House Calendars Committee when legislature adjourned.
Texas HB 3027 Declares “”foreign law” means a law, rule, or legal code of a jurisdiction outside of the states and territories of the United States…A ruling or decision of a court, arbitrator, or administrative adjudicator may not be based on a foreign law if the application of that law would violate a right guaranteed by the United States Constitution or the constitution of this state.”. Died in House Committee on Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence when legislature adjourned.
Texas HJR 57 (Constitutional Amendment) Provides “A court of this state shall uphold the laws of the Constitution of the United States, this Constitution, federal laws, and laws of this state. A court of this state may not enforce, consider, or apply any religious or cultural law.” Died in House State Affairs Committee when legislature adjourned.
Texas HB 79A (Special Session) AS AMENDED: Provides “In this chapter, “foreign law” means a law, rule, or legal code of a jurisdiction outside of the states and territories of the United States…A ruling or decision of a court, arbitrator, or administrative adjudicator on a matter arising under the Family Code may not be based on a foreign law if the application of that law would violate a right guaranteed by the United States Constitution or the constitution of this state.” Approved as amended by full House 6/22/11. Removed by Senate Jurisprudence Committee 6/27/11.
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.” Died in House Judiciary Committee when legislature adjourned.
Wyoming HJR 8 (Constitutional Amendment) Prohibits court use of sharia law. Prohibits Wyoming courts from referencing law of other U.S. states if law of the other state does include sharia law. Requires Wyoming courts uphold and adhere to the law as provided in the constitution of the United States, the Wyoming constitution, the United States Code and federal regulations promulgated pursuant thereto, laws of this state, and established common law as specified by legislative enactment. Prohibits courts from considering the legal precepts of other nations or cultures including, without limitation, international law and Sharia law. Died in House Judiciary Committee when legislature adjourned.
]]> http://gaveltogavel.us/site/2011/08/08/bans-on-court-use-of-shariainternational-law-aba-house-of-delegates-opposes-blanket-prohibitions-state-legislatures-out-of-session/feed/ 3 Bans on court use of sharia/international law: Michigan becomes 22nd state to consider, Texas House tries again to get Senate to adopt http://gaveltogavel.us/site/2011/07/05/bans-on-court-use-of-shariainternational-law-michigan-becomes-22nd-state-to-consider-texas-house-tries-again-to-get-senate-to-adopt/ http://gaveltogavel.us/site/2011/07/05/bans-on-court-use-of-shariainternational-law-michigan-becomes-22nd-state-to-consider-texas-house-tries-again-to-get-senate-to-adopt/#comments Tue, 05 Jul 2011 15:22:19 +0000 Bill Raftery http://gaveltogavel.us/site/?p=2206 This post has been updated. Click here.

With Alabama, Iowa, and North Carolina all set to adjourn in June, it looked as if there would not be any additional sharia/international law bans introduced or debated in 2011. However, in mid-June Michigan introduced a bill (HB 4769) co-sponsored by 42 of 63 Michigan House Republicans that copied much of the language from the versions introduced in Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Missouri, South Dakota, and West Virginia, in particular the use of the term “informal tribunals” or “informal administrative body” in all of these versions, something that does not appear in the others.

Meanwhile, Texas in its special session reintroduced one of theirs from the regular session. I went into the details of the legislative machinations in May in Texas in my last update. In sum, the ban was limited to family law/Family Code cases by a House committee (HB 911), was added onto the “losers pays” tort reform bill at the last minute on the House floor (Amendment #6 to HB 274), and stripped out by a Senate committee.

June proved to be a repeat of May’s efforts. The original HB 79A, a bill for the implementation of the judiciary budget, did not include the ban. Instead, it was again floor amended in (Amendment #12), over the objections of a least one member of the House who attempted to have the amendment ruled not germane to the bill. The amendment was ruled germane and adopted on a 105-29-2 vote. Once again, a Senate committee (this time the Jurisprudence Committee) stripped the provision out and the bill was sent to the governor without the ban on June 29.

Full roster of 49 bills introduced in 2011 in 22 states and their statuses after the jump.

Bill Provisions Status
Alabama HB 597 (Constitutional Amendment) Provides “the courts…when exercising their judicial authority, shall uphold and adhere to the law as provided in the United States Constitution, the Constitution of Alabama of 1901, the United States Code, federal regulations promulgated pursuant thereto, established common law, the Code of Alabama 1975, and rules promulgated thereto, and if necessary the law of another state of the United States, provided the law of the other state does not include Sharia, in making judicial decisions. The courts shall not look to the legal precepts of other nations or cultures. Specifically, the courts shall not consider international law or Sharia. The provisions of this subsection shall apply to all cases before the respective courts including, but not limited to, cases of first impression.” Died in House Committee on Judiciary when legislature adjourned.
Alabama HB 607 (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.” Died in House Committee on Judiciary when legislature adjourned.
Alabama SB 61 (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 3/24/11. Died on Senate floor when legislature adjourned.
Alabama SB 62 (Constitutional Amendment) Provides Alabama courts “when exercising their judicial authority, shall uphold and adhere to the law as provided in the United States Constitution, the Constitution of Alabama of 1901, the United States Code, federal regulations promulgated pursuant thereto, established common law, the Code of Alabama 1975, and rules promulgated thereto, and if necessary the law of another state of the United States, provided the law of the other state does not include Sharia, in making judicial decisions. The courts shall not look to the legal precepts of other nations or cultures. Specifically, the courts shall not consider international law or Sharia. The provisions of this subsection shall apply to all cases before the respective courts including, but not limited to, cases of first impression.” Approved by Senate Committee on Judiciary 3/24/11. Died on Senate floor when legislature adjourned.
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. Died in House Finance Committee when legislature adjourned.
Arizona HB 2064 Defines “foreign law” as “any law, rule or legal code or system other than the constitution, laws and ratified treaties of the united states and the territories of the united states, or the constitution and laws of this state….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 or conflict with the laws of the united states or of this state.” Signed into law by governor 4/12/11.
Arizona HB 2582 Enacts the “Arizona Foreign Decisions Act” Declares the acceptance of Arizona into the Union was a “compact”. Declares “Congress has no authority to preempt state regulation of state courts.” Prohibits courts from implementing, referring or incorporating or using “a tenet of any body of religious sectarian law” and specifically includes sharia law, canon law, halacha and karma, but exempts decisions based on Anglo-American legal tradition, laws or case law from Great Britain prior enactment of the statute, or the definition of marriage as between one man and one woman, “and the principles on which the United States was founded.” Prohibits use of any case law or statute from a non-U.S. jurisdiction or “foreign body”, including the United Nations. Decisions that make use of a body of religious sectarian law or foreign law declared void and usages declared to be grounds for impeachment. Declares these provisions apply to Federal courts sitting in diversity jurisdiction. Requires any court that construes this statute must do so in a way to confine the power of Congress and the federal judiciary. Approved by House Judiciary Committee 2/17/11. Died in House Rules Committee when legislature adjourned.
Arizona HCR 2033 (Constitutional Amendment) Provides state’s courts shall not consider, enforce or otherwise incorporate into any decision on the merits the legal precepts of other nations or cultures that run counter to the laws of this state unless expressly ratified by bicameralism and presentment in the state legislature or duly ratified as a treaty by the Senate of the United States. Provides state courts shall uphold and adhere to the law as provided in the United States Constitution, the Constitution of this state, The United States Code, federal regulations adopted pursuant to the United States code, established common law, the laws of this state and rules adopted pursuant to the laws of this state and, if necessary, the laws of another state of the United States provided the law of the other state does not incorporate directly or by reference international law or the precepts of nations or cultures. Died in House when legislature adjourned.
Arizona SCR 1010 (Constitutional Amendment) Requires courts, when making judicial decisions, to uphold and adhere to the laws of the U.S. Constitution, Arizona Constitution, U.S. Code, Federal regulations, established common law, Arizona laws and rules and if necessary, the laws of another state within the U.S. provided the laws in the other state do not include international law. Prohibits Arizona courts from considering international law or legal precepts of other nations or cultures when making judicial decisions. Died in Senate Committee on Judiciary when legislature adjourned.
Arkansas SJR 10 (Constitutional Amendment) (Placeholder bill) Declares “The purpose of this Senate Joint Resolution is to amend the Arkansas Constitution concerning the application of foreign laws, legal codes, or systems for the purpose of protecting rights and privileges granted under the United States Constitution and the Arkansas Constitution.” Died in Senate Committee on State Agencies and Governmental Affairs when legislature adjourned.
Arkansas SB 97 Prohibits 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 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 Constitution and the Arkansas Constitution Died in Senate Committee on Judiciary when legislature adjourned.
Florida HB 1273 Defines term “foreign law, legal code, or system”; specifies public policy of this state in applying choice of foreign law, legal code, or system. Declares that certain decisions rendered under such laws, codes, or systems are void. Indefinitely postponed and withdrawn from consideration 5/7/11.
Florida SB 1294 Specifies the public policy of this state in applying the choice of a foreign law, legal code, or system under certain circumstances. Declares that certain decisions rendered under such laws, codes, or systems are void. Approved by Senate Judiciary Committee 4/4/11. Indefinitely postponed and withdrawn from consideration 5/7/11.
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.” Died in House Committee on Judiciary 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.” Died in House Committee on Judiciary Non-Civil 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 Died in Senate Committee on the Judiciary when legislature adjourned.
Indiana HB 1078 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. Died in House Committee on Judiciary when legislature adjourned.
Indiana SB 298 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. Died in Senate Committee on Judiciary when legislature adjourned.
Indiana SB 520 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. Approved by full Senate 2/17/11. Died in House Committee on Judiciary when legislature adjourned.
Indiana SJR 16 (Constitutional Amendment) Provides a court may not enforce a law, rule, or legal code or system established and either used or applied in a jurisdiction outside the states of the United States, the District of Columbia, or the territories of the United States if doing so would violate a right guaranteed by this constitution or the Constitution of the United States. Died in Senate Committee on Judiciary when legislature adjourned.
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.” Died in House Judiciary Committee when legislature adjourned.
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.” Died in House State Government Committee when legislature adjourned.
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.” Died in House Judiciary Committee when legislature adjourned.
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. Died in Senate Committee on Judiciary when legislature adjourned.
Maine HB 811 Provides “”foreign law, legal code or system” means any law, legal code or legal system of a jurisdiction outside of any state or territory of the United States, including, but not limited to, international organizations and tribunals, that is applied by that jurisdiction’s courts, administrative bodies or other formal or informal tribunals…The primary factor that a court, administrative agency, arbitrator, mediator or other entity or person acting under the authority of state law must consider in granting comity to a decision rendered under a foreign law, legal code or legal 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 Maine or the United States Constitution or any statute or decision under those constitutions.” Rejected by Joint Committee on Judiciary 5/25/11.
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.
Mississippi HB 301 Prohibits courts from enforcing a foreign law if doing so would violate a right guaranteed by the Constitution of this state or of the United States. Died in House Judiciary A Committee when legislature adjourned.
Mississippi HB 525 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.” Died in House Judiciary A Committee when legislature adjourned.
Missouri HB 708 Provides any court, arbitration, tribunal, or administrative agency ruling or decision violates the public policy of this state and shall be void and unenforceable if such 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 constitutions of this state and the United States. Approved by full House 4/20/11. Died on House Informal Calendar when legislature adjourned.
Missouri HB 768 Defines “foreign law” as “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.” 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.” Died in House Judiciary Committee when legislature adjourned.
Missouri HJR 31 (Constitutional Amendment) Provides state courts “when exercising their judicial authority, shall uphold and adhere to the law as provided in the United States Constitution, the Constitution of Missouri, the United States Code, federal regulations promulgated pursuant thereto, and if necessary the law of another state of the United States, provided the law of the other state does not include Sharia law, in making judicial decisions. The courts shall not look to 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.” Died in House Judiciary Committee when legislature adjourned.
Missouri SB 308 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…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 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.” Approved by Senate Judiciary and Civil and Criminal Jurisprudence Committee 4/28/11. Died on Senate floor when legislature adjourned.
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. Died in Senate Judiciary Committee when legislature adjourned.
New Mexico SJR 18 (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.” Died in Senate Rules Committee 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.” Died in House Committee on Judiciary Subcommittee C when legislature adjourned.
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. Died in Senate Rules Committee when legislature adjourned.
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.” Died in House Judiciary Committee when legislature adjourned.
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.” Died in Senate Judiciary Committee when legislature adjourned.
South Dakota HJR 1004 (Constitutional Amendment) Provides no South Dakota state court may apply international law, the law of any foreign nation, or any foreign religious or moral code with the force of law in the adjudication of any case under its jurisdiction. Tabled by Senate Judiciary Committee 2/17/11.
South Dakota SB 201 Declares “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 international organizations and tribunals, and applied by that jurisdiction’s courts, administrative bodies, or other formal or informal tribunals…Any court, arbitration, tribunal, or administrative agency ruling or decision 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 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 constitutions of the United States and the State of South Dakota.” Deferred to 41st legislative day (i.e. killed) by Senate Commerce and Energy Committee 2/16/11.
Texas HB 274 AS AMENDED: Provides “In this chapter, “foreign law” means a law, rule, or legal code of a jurisdiction outside of the states and territories of the United States…A ruling or decision of a court, arbitrator, or administrative adjudicator on a matter arising under the Family Code may not be based on a foreign law if the application of that law would violate a right guaranteed by the United States Constitution or the constitution of this state.” Approved as amended by full House 5/10/11. 4/18/11. Removed by Senate State Affairs Committee 5/23/11.
Texas HB 911 AS AMENDED: Provides “In this chapter, “foreign law” means a law, rule, or legal code of a jurisdiction outside of the states and territories of the United States…A ruling or decision of a court, arbitrator, or administrative adjudicator on a matter arising under the Family Code may not be based on a foreign law if the application of that law would violate a right guaranteed by the United States Constitution or the constitution of this state.” Approved as amended by House Committee on Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence 4/18/11. Died in House Calendars Committee when legislature adjourned.
Texas HB 999 Declares “”foreign law” means a law, rule, or legal code of a jurisdiction outside of the states and territories of the United States…A ruling or decision of a court, arbitrator, or administrative adjudicator may not be based on a foreign law if the application of that law would violate a right guaranteed by the United States Constitution or the constitution of this state.” Died in House State Affairs Committee when legislature adjourned.
Texas HB 1240 Declares “”foreign or international law or doctrine” means a law, rule, legal code, or principle of a jurisdiction outside of the states and territories of the United States, including international law, that is not codified or recognized by this state or the United States…A court, arbitrator, or administrative adjudicator may not base a ruling or decision on a foreign or international law or doctrine; or a prior ruling or decision that was based on a foreign or international law or doctrine.” Approved by House Select Committee on State Sovereignty 5/10/11. Died in House Calendars Committee when legislature adjourned.
Texas HB 3027 Declares “”foreign law” means a law, rule, or legal code of a jurisdiction outside of the states and territories of the United States…A ruling or decision of a court, arbitrator, or administrative adjudicator may not be based on a foreign law if the application of that law would violate a right guaranteed by the United States Constitution or the constitution of this state.”. Died in House Committee on Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence when legislature adjourned.
Texas HJR 57 (Constitutional Amendment) Provides “A court of this state shall uphold the laws of the Constitution of the United States, this Constitution, federal laws, and laws of this state. A court of this state may not enforce, consider, or apply any religious or cultural law.” Died in House State Affairs Committee when legislature adjourned.
Texas HB 79A (Special Session) AS AMENDED: Provides “In this chapter, “foreign law” means a law, rule, or legal code of a jurisdiction outside of the states and territories of the United States…A ruling or decision of a court, arbitrator, or administrative adjudicator on a matter arising under the Family Code may not be based on a foreign law if the application of that law would violate a right guaranteed by the United States Constitution or the constitution of this state.” Approved as amended by full House 6/22/11. Removed by Senate Jurisprudence Committee 6/27/11.
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.” Died in House Judiciary Committee when legislature adjourned.
Wyoming HJR 8 (Constitutional Amendment) Prohibits court use of sharia law. Prohibits Wyoming courts from referencing law of other U.S. states if law of the other state does include sharia law. Requires Wyoming courts uphold and adhere to the law as provided in the constitution of the United States, the Wyoming constitution, the United States Code and federal regulations promulgated pursuant thereto, laws of this state, and established common law as specified by legislative enactment. Prohibits courts from considering the legal precepts of other nations or cultures including, without limitation, international law and Sharia law. Died in House Judiciary Committee when legislature adjourned.
]]> http://gaveltogavel.us/site/2011/07/05/bans-on-court-use-of-shariainternational-law-michigan-becomes-22nd-state-to-consider-texas-house-tries-again-to-get-senate-to-adopt/feed/ 2 Bans on court use of sharia/international law: 38 of 47 bills died or rejected this session; only 1 enacted into law http://gaveltogavel.us/site/2011/06/03/bans-on-court-use-of-shariainternational-law-38-of-47-bills-died-or-rejected-this-session-only-1-enacted-into-law/ http://gaveltogavel.us/site/2011/06/03/bans-on-court-use-of-shariainternational-law-38-of-47-bills-died-or-rejected-this-session-only-1-enacted-into-law/#comments Fri, 03 Jun 2011 16:55:28 +0000 Bill Raftery http://gaveltogavel.us/site/?p=2007 This post has been updated. Click here.

With most state legislatures going out of session, May proved to relatively inactive for bills seeking to ban court use of sharia/international law. In the May update (located here) there were 44 bills in 21 states. In June, the number of bills climbed to 47 in 21 states. As of today, the status of the 47 breaks down as follows:

38 died due to adjournment or had been rejected by their respective legislatures.

1 was signed into law (Arizona’s HB 2064 on April 12).

8 remain at least theoretically active: 4 in Alabama; 3 in Iowa; 1 in North Carolina.

Texas was the focus of much of the May activity. On May 9, the text of the House Committee on Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence ban (HB 911) approved in April was floor-amended (Amendment #6) into the so-called “loser pays” tort reform bill (HB 274). This version, as amended in committee, was much more limited than others and specified it applied in matters “arising under the Family Code” only and then only if “the application of that [foreign] law would violate a right guaranteed by the United States Constitution or the constitution or a statute of this state.” Amendment 6 was approved by a 112-31 vote in the House, but was removed by the Senate State Affairs committee and failed to be enacted when the final version of HB 274 was signed into law May 30.

Meanwhile, on (May 10) the House Select Committee on State Sovereignty advanced a broader version (HB 1240) of a sharia/international law ban

“foreign or international law or doctrine” means a law, rule, legal code, or principle of a jurisdiction outside the legal traditions of the states and territories of the United States, including international laws, that do not have a binding effect on this state or the United States…A court, arbitrator, or administrative adjudicator may not base a ruling or decision on: (1) a foreign or international law or doctrine; or (2) a prior ruling or decision that was based on a foreign or international law or doctrine.

HB 1240 proceeded to the House Calendars committee, where it died when the legislature adjourned.

Full roster of bills introduced in 2011 and their status after the jump.

Bill Provisions Status
Alabama HB 597 (Constitutional Amendment) Provides “the courts…when exercising their judicial authority, shall uphold and adhere to the law as provided in the United States Constitution, the Constitution of Alabama of 1901, the United States Code, federal regulations promulgated pursuant thereto, established common law, the Code of Alabama 1975, and rules promulgated thereto, and if necessary the law of another state of the United States, provided the law of the other state does not include Sharia, in making judicial decisions. The courts shall not look to the legal precepts of other nations or cultures. Specifically, the courts shall not consider international law or Sharia. The provisions of this subsection shall apply to all cases before the respective courts including, but not limited to, cases of first impression.” In House Committee on Judiciary.
Alabama HB 607 (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 House Committee on Judiciary.
Alabama SB 61 (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 3/24/11.
Alabama SB 62 (Constitutional Amendment) Provides Alabama courts “when exercising their judicial authority, shall uphold and adhere to the law as provided in the United States Constitution, the Constitution of Alabama of 1901, the United States Code, federal regulations promulgated pursuant thereto, established common law, the Code of Alabama 1975, and rules promulgated thereto, and if necessary the law of another state of the United States, provided the law of the other state does not include Sharia, in making judicial decisions. The courts shall not look to the legal precepts of other nations or cultures. Specifically, the courts shall not consider international law or Sharia. The provisions of this subsection shall apply to all cases before the respective courts including, but not limited to, cases of first impression.” Approved by Senate Committee on Judiciary 3/24/11.
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. Died in House Finance Committee when legislature adjourned.
Arizona HB 2064 Defines “foreign law” as “any law, rule or legal code or system other than the constitution, laws and ratified treaties of the united states and the territories of the united states, or the constitution and laws of this state….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 or conflict with the laws of the united states or of this state.” Signed into law by governor 4/12/11.
Arizona HB 2582 Enacts the “Arizona Foreign Decisions Act” Declares the acceptance of Arizona into the Union was a “compact”. Declares “Congress has no authority to preempt state regulation of state courts.” Prohibits courts from implementing, referring or incorporating or using “a tenet of any body of religious sectarian law” and specifically includes sharia law, canon law, halacha and karma, but exempts decisions based on Anglo-American legal tradition, laws or case law from Great Britain prior enactment of the statute, or the definition of marriage as between one man and one woman, “and the principles on which the United States was founded.” Prohibits use of any case law or statute from a non-U.S. jurisdiction or “foreign body”, including the United Nations. Decisions that make use of a body of religious sectarian law or foreign law declared void and usages declared to be grounds for impeachment. Declares these provisions apply to Federal courts sitting in diversity jurisdiction. Requires any court that construes this statute must do so in a way to confine the power of Congress and the federal judiciary. Approved by House Judiciary Committee 2/17/11. Died in House Rules Committee when legislature adjourned.
Arizona HCR 2033 (Constitutional Amendment) Provides state’s courts shall not consider, enforce or otherwise incorporate into any decision on the merits the legal precepts of other nations or cultures that run counter to the laws of this state unless expressly ratified by bicameralism and presentment in the state legislature or duly ratified as a treaty by the Senate of the United States. Provides state courts shall uphold and adhere to the law as provided in the United States Constitution, the Constitution of this state, The United States Code, federal regulations adopted pursuant to the United States code, established common law, the laws of this state and rules adopted pursuant to the laws of this state and, if necessary, the laws of another state of the United States provided the law of the other state does not incorporate directly or by reference international law or the precepts of nations or cultures. Died in House when legislature adjourned.
Arizona SCR 1010 (Constitutional Amendment) Requires courts, when making judicial decisions, to uphold and adhere to the laws of the U.S. Constitution, Arizona Constitution, U.S. Code, Federal regulations, established common law, Arizona laws and rules and if necessary, the laws of another state within the U.S. provided the laws in the other state do not include international law. Prohibits Arizona courts from considering international law or legal precepts of other nations or cultures when making judicial decisions. Died in Senate Committee on Judiciary when legislature adjourned.
Arkansas SJR 10 (Constitutional Amendment) (Placeholder bill) Declares “The purpose of this Senate Joint Resolution is to amend the Arkansas Constitution concerning the application of foreign laws, legal codes, or systems for the purpose of protecting rights and privileges granted under the United States Constitution and the Arkansas Constitution.” Died in Senate Committee on State Agencies and Governmental Affairs when legislature adjourned.
Arkansas SB 97 Prohibits 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 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 Constitution and the Arkansas Constitution Died in Senate Committee on Judiciary when legislature adjourned.
Florida HB 1273 Defines term “foreign law, legal code, or system”; specifies public policy of this state in applying choice of foreign law, legal code, or system. Declares that certain decisions rendered under such laws, codes, or systems are void. Indefinitely postponed and withdrawn from consideration 5/7/11.
Florida SB 1294 Specifies the public policy of this state in applying the choice of a foreign law, legal code, or system under certain circumstances. Declares that certain decisions rendered under such laws, codes, or systems are void. Approved by Senate Judiciary Committee 4/4/11. Indefinitely postponed and withdrawn from consideration 5/7/11.
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.” Died in House Committee on Judiciary 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.” Died in House Committee on Judiciary Non-Civil 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 Died in Senate Committee on the Judiciary when legislature adjourned.
Indiana HB 1078 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. Died in House Committee on Judiciary when legislature adjourned.
Indiana SB 298 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. Died in Senate Committee on Judiciary when legislature adjourned.
Indiana SB 520 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. Approved by full Senate 2/17/11. Died in House Committee on Judiciary when legislature adjourned.
Indiana SJR 16 (Constitutional Amendment) Provides a court may not enforce a law, rule, or legal code or system established and either used or applied in a jurisdiction outside the states of the United States, the District of Columbia, or the territories of the United States if doing so would violate a right guaranteed by this constitution or the Constitution of the United States. Died in Senate Committee on Judiciary when legislature adjourned.
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.
Iowa HB 575 Enacts “Iowa Freedom and Sovereignty Act.” Defines “Foreign law” as “any law enacted by a jurisdiction 4 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.
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.
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. Died in Senate Committee on Judiciary when legislature adjourned.
Maine HB 811 Provides “”foreign law, legal code or system” means any law, legal code or legal system of a jurisdiction outside of any state or territory of the United States, including, but not limited to, international organizations and tribunals, that is applied by that jurisdiction’s courts, administrative bodies or other formal or informal tribunals…The primary factor that a court, administrative agency, arbitrator, mediator or other entity or person acting under the authority of state law must consider in granting comity to a decision rendered under a foreign law, legal code or legal 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 Maine or the United States Constitution or any statute or decision under those constitutions.” Rejected by Joint Committee on Judiciary 5/25/11.
Mississippi HB 301 Prohibits courts from enforcing a foreign law if doing so would violate a right guaranteed by the Constitution of this state or of the United States. Died in House Judiciary A Committee when legislature adjourned.
Mississippi HB 525 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.” Died in House Judiciary A Committee when legislature adjourned.
Missouri HB 708 Provides any court, arbitration, tribunal, or administrative agency ruling or decision violates the public policy of this state and shall be void and unenforceable if such 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 constitutions of this state and the United States. Approved by full House 4/20/11. Hearing in Senate Judiciary and Civil and Criminal Jurisprudence Committee 4/26/11. Died on House Informal Calendar when legislature adjourned.
Missouri HB 768 Defines “foreign law” as “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.” 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.” Died in House Judiciary Committee when legislature adjourned.
Missouri HJR 31 (Constitutional Amendment) Provides state courts “when exercising their judicial authority, shall uphold and adhere to the law as provided in the United States Constitution, the Constitution of Missouri, the United States Code, federal regulations promulgated pursuant thereto, and if necessary the law of another state of the United States, provided the law of the other state does not include Sharia law, in making judicial decisions. The courts shall not look to 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.” Died in House Judiciary Committee when legislature adjourned.
Missouri SB 308 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…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 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.” Approved by Senate Judiciary and Civil and Criminal Jurisprudence Committee 4/28/11. Died on Senate floor when legislature adjourned.
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. Died in Senate Judiciary Committee when legislature adjourned.
New Mexico SJR 18 (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.” Died in Senate Rules Committee 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.
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. Died in Senate Rules Committee when legislature adjourned.
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.” Died in House Judiciary Committee when legislature adjourned.
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.” Died in Senate Judiciary Committee when legislature adjourned.
South Dakota HJR 1004 (Constitutional Amendment) Provides no South Dakota state court may apply international law, the law of any foreign nation, or any foreign religious or moral code with the force of law in the adjudication of any case under its jurisdiction. Tabled by Senate Judiciary Committee 2/17/11.
South Dakota SB 201 Declares “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 international organizations and tribunals, and applied by that jurisdiction’s courts, administrative bodies, or other formal or informal tribunals…Any court, arbitration, tribunal, or administrative agency ruling or decision 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 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 constitutions of the United States and the State of South Dakota.” Deferred to 41st legislative day (i.e. killed) by Senate Commerce and Energy Committee 2/16/11.
Texas HB 274 AS AMENDED: Provides “In this chapter, “foreign law” means a law, rule, or legal code of a jurisdiction outside of the states and territories of the United States…A ruling or decision of a court, arbitrator, or administrative adjudicator on a matter arising under the Family Code may not be based on a foreign law if the application of that law would violate a right guaranteed by the United States Constitution or the constitution of this state.” Approved as amended by full House 5/10/11. Removed by Senate State Affairs Committee 5/23/11.
Texas HB 911 AS AMENDED: Provides “In this chapter, “foreign law” means a law, rule, or legal code of a jurisdiction outside of the states and territories of the United States…A ruling or decision of a court, arbitrator, or administrative adjudicator on a matter arising under the Family Code may not be based on a foreign law if the application of that law would violate a right guaranteed by the United States Constitution or the constitution of this state.” Approved as amended by House Committee on Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence 4/18/11. Died in House Calendars Committee when legislature adjourned.
Texas HB 999 Declares ““foreign law” means a law, rule, or legal code of a jurisdiction outside of the states and territories of the United States…A ruling or decision of a court, arbitrator, or administrative adjudicator may not be based on a foreign law if the application of that law would violate a right guaranteed by the United States Constitution or the constitution of this state.” Died in House State Affairs Committee when legislature adjourned.
Texas HB 1240 Declares ““foreign or international law or doctrine” means a law, rule, legal code, or principle of a jurisdiction outside of the states and territories of the United States, including international law, that is not codified or recognized by this state or the United States…A court, arbitrator, or administrative adjudicator may not base a ruling or decision on a foreign or international law or doctrine; or a prior ruling or decision that was based on a foreign or international law or doctrine.” Approved by House Select Committee on State Sovereignty 5/10/11. Died in House Calendars Committee when legislature adjourned.
Texas HB 3027 Declares ““foreign law” means a law, rule, or legal code of a jurisdiction outside of the states and territories of the United States…A ruling or decision of a court, arbitrator, or administrative adjudicator may not be based on a foreign law if the application of that law would violate a right guaranteed by the United States Constitution or the constitution of this state.”. Died in House Committee on Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence when legislature adjourned.
Texas HJR 57 (Constitutional Amendment) Provides “A court of this state shall uphold the laws of the Constitution of the United States, this Constitution, federal laws, and laws of this state. A court of this state may not enforce, consider, or apply any religious or cultural law.” Died in House State Affairs Committee when legislature adjourned.
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.” Died in House Judiciary Committee when legislature adjourned.
Wyoming HJR 8 (Constitutional Amendment) Prohibits court use of sharia law. Prohibits Wyoming courts from referencing law of other U.S. states if law of the other state does include sharia law. Requires Wyoming courts uphold and adhere to the law as provided in the constitution of the United States, the Wyoming constitution, the United States Code and federal regulations promulgated pursuant thereto, laws of this state, and established common law as specified by legislative enactment. Prohibits courts from considering the legal precepts of other nations or cultures including, without limitation, international law and Sharia law. Died in House Judiciary Committee when legislature adjourned.
]]> http://gaveltogavel.us/site/2011/06/03/bans-on-court-use-of-shariainternational-law-38-of-47-bills-died-or-rejected-this-session-only-1-enacted-into-law/feed/ 2 Alabama Senate joins other states in favoring federal law to intercept payments for court-owed fees/fines http://gaveltogavel.us/site/2011/05/13/alabama-senate-joins-other-states-in-favoring-federal-law-to-intercept-payments-for-court-owed-feesfines/ http://gaveltogavel.us/site/2011/05/13/alabama-senate-joins-other-states-in-favoring-federal-law-to-intercept-payments-for-court-owed-feesfines/#comments Fri, 13 May 2011 17:37:13 +0000 Bill Raftery http://gaveltogavel.us/site/?p=1887 I noted in February 2010 (Issue 4:8) that several state legislatures were encouraging Congress to adopt a bill to allow for court debt to be collected through the U.S. Treasury’s Offset Program (TOP) which is used to collect delinquent debts owed to federal agencies and states (including past-due child support). Last week, Alabama’s SJR 122 was introduced directly onto the floor and adopted by voice vote. While the text is not yet available on the legislature’s website, it is available thanks to the legislative tracking services provided by our friends at LexisNexis.

WHEREAS, the courts of this state order the payment of restitution to victims of crime as well as the payment of court fines and fees at the conclusion of criminal matters; and

WHEREAS, victims of crime are due these monies to help compensate them for the wrong which has been visited upon them by the perpetrator, and the state is due these monies to offset the costs of ensuring “[t]hat all courts shall be open” as required by the Constitution of Alabama of 1901; and

WHEREAS, unpaid restitutions and court fines and fees have been and continue to be a problem in this state, with currently over $ 551 million being due the State of Alabama in unpaid court-imposed fines and fees; and

WHEREAS, the Legislature by Act 2004-505, now codified as Section 40-18-100, et seq., Code of Alabama 1975, enabled the Alabama Department of Revenue to collect unpaid court fines and fees by use of a setoff of the state income tax refund of a debtor; and

WHEREAS, since the enactment of Act 2004-505, over $ 13.3 million have been collected in unpaid court costs and fines by the Alabama Department of Revenue; and

WHEREAS, the Crime Victim Restitution and Court Fee Intercept Act will enable the United States Treasury to offset restitution and other state judicial debts against an individual’s federal income tax refund in a similar manner as the Alabama Department of Revenue is permitted to do so pursuant to Act 2004-505; and

WHEREAS, the enactment of this legislation will enable victims of crime to receive the restitution due them as well as for states to collect unpaid court fines and fees; now therefore,

BE IT RESOLVED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF ALABAMA, BOTH HOUSES THEREOF CONCURRING, That we hereby urge the United States Congress to approve H.R. 1416 and S. 755, the Crime Victim Restitution and Court Fee Intercept Act, with all due haste.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That a copy of this resolution will be provided to each member of Alabama’s Congressional Delegation.

Alabama is now the seventh state to consider supporting such a federal intercept program.

2011

Filed in May 2010 and still technically pending, New Jersey’s SCR 100 uses much the same language as Delaware’s HJR 14 of 2010 (see below).

2010

March: Mississippi’s SCR 671 noted that “the legislation has received support from a broad-based coalition of public interest groups such as the National Association for Court Management…” Due to its late filing late in the session, however, it failed to be adopted.

Delaware’s HJR 9 and HJR 14 claimed “the increased collection of court-ordered restitution, fines, fees and costs will benefit victims of crime, the State of Delaware, Delaware’s Counties and other municipalities, along with programs such as the Victim’s Compensation Fund and court security, all of which are particularly important during these extraordinarily challenging economic times…” HJR 14 which was eventually adopted unanimously by both chambers of the Delaware legislature and signed by the governor.

2009

February: New Mexico’s legislature considered HJM 73 in favor of the intercept legislation, finding “more than nine thousand individuals have outstanding fines and fees ordered by a court in New Mexico, which fines and fees total just under two million five hundred twenty-one thousand dollars ($2,521,000).” Moreover, New Mexico’s own state-level version, a tax refund intercept program, had already collected nearly $150,000 in unpaid fees and fines (as of February 2009). The resolution estimated that participation in the federal program would “conservatively” result in $300,000 in collections for the judicial branch of the state. HJM 73 was later approved unanimously by the legislature.

Arkansas HCR 1010 was introduced, supporting the bill, claiming the collection system would “contribute positively to the public trust and confidence in the judicial system. Like its New Mexico counterpart, HCR 1010 was approved unanimously by the state legislature.

April: Oregon’s SJM 12 was also unanimously approved by that state’s legislature, using much the same language as Arkansas HCR 1010 and also meets with unanimous legislative approval.

]]> http://gaveltogavel.us/site/2011/05/13/alabama-senate-joins-other-states-in-favoring-federal-law-to-intercept-payments-for-court-owed-feesfines/feed/ 1