Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon has vetoed a bill that would have made his state the seventh in the nation to prohibit judges from considering Shari’ah, or Islamic law, and other “foreign laws” in their decisions.
But rather than citing the usual arguments about anti-Muslim discrimination and the freedom of religion, Nixon introduced a new argument against such legislation, asserting it would make it harder for Missouri families to adopt children from overseas.
Nixon said if state judges would not be able to consider foreign decrees that are sometimes required to finalize adoptions, adoptive families and children would be left stranded.
Here is a different, but related scenario. A mother from Arizona separates from her husband, who is French. She has custody of the children. Their children fmake a visit to him in France but he refuses to return them. A judge in AZ orders the children to be returned to her custody, and the mother approaches a court in France asking that the judgement be enforced. But, wait a minute, the judge might say. In AZ you refuse to recognise foreign laws. Why should we recognise Arizona law?
I raise this example because it shows how once more, the law of unintended consequences may surface. To refuse recognition of foreign laws may play to the gallery, and be a populist move. It might be unwise and bring more harm than good. Better to leave the judges some discretion – to do so hardly impinges upon sovereignty and the US Constitution.