Welcome to the continuing legal education course entitled, “American Laws for American Courts,” prepared and presented by the Law Offices of David Yerushalmi, P.C. This course was made possible by the Public Policy Alliance, a non-profit group dedicated to resisting the application of foreign laws and transnational legal systems in U.S. domestic courts when those foreign laws, if passed by a state legislature, would violate U.S. and state fundamental constitutional privileges and liberties. The Public Policy Alliance turned to the Law Offices of David Yerushalmi, P.C., to craft a uniform act that state legislatures could enact that would prevent local courts from applying those offending foreign laws in state courts.
The purpose of this course is to analyze and to provide the factual and legal context for the draft legislation that goes by the name, American Laws for American Courts. We consider this draft legislation to be a model uniform law for the states.
The essence of this draft legislation is to provide a baseline law that provides a statutory framework for precluding constitutionally objectionable foreign laws and legal systems from finding their way into the state judicial system. One example of an offending transnational law is sharia—authoritative Islamic law that is applied as the law of the land in many countries around the world. Sharia is patently offensive to U.S. and state constitutional law because it criminalizes apostasy (violation of Free Excersise of Religion) and blasphemy against Islam, Mohammed, and sharia itself (violation of Free Speech). Sharia also violates principles of due process and equal protection by discriminating against non-Muslims and women.
Countries that apply sharia as the law of the land include Saudi Arabia, Iran, Sudan, and Somalia. Many Muslim countries apply shariah as the law of the land in specific legal areas such as family law and inheritance. Examples of these countries and political regimes include Pakistan, Afghanistan, Nigeria, parts of Indonesia, Gaza, Jordan, Yemen, and almost all of the Gulf states. In addition, just about all Muslim countries have a de jure or de facto sharia supremacy clause which effectively does not allow any “secular” law to violate sharia’s fundamental principles of Islamic supremacy. Countries of this type include such "moderate" countries such as Egypt, Jordan, Afghanistan, and even Iraq.
This CLE course will analyze each provision of this draft legislation so that legislators will have a better idea why this legislation is needed and so that practicing lawyers and policy professionals will have a better understanding of how this law might impact litigation in state courts.
The uniform act reads as follows:
AN ACT to protect rights and privileges granted under the United States or [State] Constitution.
WHEREAS, while the [general assembly/state legislature] fully recognizes the right to contract freely under the laws of this state, it also recognizes that this right may be reasonably and rationally circumscribed pursuant to the state’s interest to protect and promote rights and privileges granted under the United States or [State] Constitution; now, therefore,
BE IT ENACTED BY THE [GENERAL ASSEMBLY/LEGISLATURE] OF THE STATE OF [_____]:
 As used in this act, “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 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 U.S. and [State] Constitutions.
 A contract or contractual provision (if severable) which provides for the choice of a law, legal code or system to govern some or all of the disputes between the parties adjudicated by a court of law or by an arbitration panel arising from the contract mutually agreed upon shall violate the public policy of this State and be void and unenforceable if the law, legal code or system chosen includes or incorporates any substantive or procedural law, as applied to the dispute at issue, that would not grant the parties the same fundamental liberties, rights, and privileges granted under the U.S. and [State] Constitutions.
 (a) A contract or contractual provision (if severable) which provides for a jurisdiction for purposes of granting the courts or arbitration panels in personam jurisdiction over the parties to adjudicate any disputes between parties arising from the contract mutually agreed upon shall violate the public policy of this State and be void and unenforceable if the jurisdiction chosen includes any law, legal code or system, as applied to the dispute at issue, that would not grant the parties the same fundamental liberties, rights, and privileges granted under the U.S. and [State] Constitutions.
(b) If a resident of this state, subject to personal jurisdiction in this state, seeks to maintain litigation, arbitration, agency or similarly binding proceedings in this state and if the courts of this state find that granting a claim of forum non conveniens or a related claim violates or would likely violate the fundamental liberties, rights, and privileges granted under the U.S. and [State] Constitutions of the non-claimant in the foreign forum with respect to the matter in dispute, then it is the public policy of this state that the claim shall be denied.
The CLE course is provided below as a 40-minute fully narrated online PowerPoint presentation. You can maximize the screen for best viewing. We trust you will find this course illuminating and most importantly, you will see through the examples we discuss that sharia is a real threat even now because it has already insinuated its way into our courts as litigants ask courts, applying the police power of the states, to enforce sharia judgments and arbitration decisions and to apply sharia as the law at work here in the U.S.
We also recommend you take our CLE course on shariah-compliant finance (“SCF”), which is a financial model promoted by the Muslim Brotherhood and sharia-advocating Islamists, properly understood as advocates of applying Islamic law within Muslim and non-Muslim countries as the law of the land in an effort to revitalize the concept of a worldwide Caliphate. Under sharia, the "Caliphate" is the goal: a sharia-based transnational political order. SCF is also promoted by transnational financiers and their facilitators, such as lawyers, who profit by promoting sharia in our financial system. SCF, we believe, is another of the great dangers to our financial system and to the integrity of our constitutional system. Our CLE course on SCF is available here.
CLE Course on American Laws for American Courts