The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals today upheld a ruling that blocked the implementation of an Oklahoma initiative barring judges there from considering Islamic law in court decisions.

The Denver-based appellate court, one rung below the U.S. Supreme Court, said it is likely the initiative will be found unconstitutional because it singles out Islam for discrimination. The court said Oklahoma hasn’t shown any reason for the need to specifically ban Islamic law.

“Given the lack of evidence of any concrete problem, any harm seek to remedy with the proposed amendment is speculative at best,” 10th Circuit Judge Scott Matheson, writing for a three-judge panel of the court, concluded.

Oklahoma voters overwhelmingly approved the initiative in 2010. The measure prevents judges from basing rulings on international law and then mentions Islamic law — known as Shariah — specifically.

After the election, Muneer Awad, the executive director for the Oklahoma chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, sued.

Awad argued that the initiative stigmatizes Islam and also denies him rights that are available to people of other religions. For instance, Awad said his will instructs a judge to look to Islamic precepts in situations where Awad’s wishes aren’t clear. The initiative, Awad said, would prevent a judge from doing that, even though the judge could do that for people who are Christian or Jewish.

“This is an important reminder,” Awad said today in a statement, “that the Constitution is the last line of defense against a rising tide of anti-Muslim bigotry in our society.”

A federal judge in Oklahoma granted a preliminary injunction last year that blocked the initiative from being certified. The state appealed that decision to the 10th Circuit.

Today’s ruling means the injunction will stay in place while Awad’s lawsuit goes forward.

Lawyers for the state had argued that Awad’s challenge was premature — coming before the law was even in place. But the 10th Circuit ruled that, because the initiative’s certification was imminent when the suit was filed, there is a legitimate question of whether the initiative violates the U.S. Constitution’s prohibition against religious discrimination.

“We conclude that Mr. Awad’s allegation — that the proposed state amendment expressly condemns his religion and exposes him and other Muslims in Oklahoma to disfavored treatment — suffices to establish the kind of direct injury-in-fact necessary to create Establishment Clause standing,” Matheson wrote.

Oklahoma’s lawyers had also argued that the initiative was not discriminatory because it applied to all religious laws or laws of other countries. Shariah, the lawyers said, was only mentioned as an example.

The initiative “was just to determine what type of law should be applied and adhered to in court,” Oklahoma Solicitor General Patrick Wyrick said during arguments before the 10th Circuit last year.

But the appellate court rejected that argument.

“The amendment bans only one form of religious law — Shariah law,” Matheson wrote.

John Ingold: 303-954-1068 or jingold@denverpost.com.