Oklahoma State Question 755, also known as the International and Sharia Law Amendment, was a legislatively referred constitutional amendment placed on the November 2, 2010, ballot to amend Article VII, Section 1 of the Oklahoma State Constitution. The measure aimed to prohibit Oklahoma state courts from considering, applying, or using international law or Sharia law when exercising their judicial authority, adding specific language that courts 'shall not look to the legal precepts of other nations or cultures' and specifically shall not consider 'international law or Sharia Law.' It was driven by concerns over the influence of foreign legal systems in U.S. jurisprudence, particularly in the context of post-9/11 fears regarding Islamic law and the growing Muslim population, with proponents arguing it protected Oklahoma's legal system from foreign influences. The initiative was sponsored by Republican state legislators Sally Kern and Anthony Sykes, and it received strong endorsements from conservative figures and organizations including U.S. Senators Jim Inhofe and Tom Coburn and the Oklahoma Republican Party, reflecting broader national debates on immigration, religion, judicial sovereignty, and anti-Muslim sentiment during the Tea Party era. The amendment was approved by Oklahoma voters on November 2, 2010, with approximately 70% support, reflecting strong public sentiment against perceived threats from non-American legal traditions. Following its passage, State Question 755 faced immediate legal challenges. On November 29, 2010, U.S. District Judge Vicki Miles-LaGrange issued a temporary restraining order blocking the amendment's certification, citing potential violations of the Establishment Clause. The measure was ultimately struck down by the U.S. District Court in 2011 (with a permanent injunction), with the ruling upheld by the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals in January 2012, which declared the measure unconstitutional for its discriminatory intent and lack of legitimate purpose, citing that it violated the Establishment Clause by targeting Islam specifically. The case, Awad v. Ziriax, was filed by Muneer Awad, executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations' Oklahoma chapter, and reached the U.S. Supreme Court, which denied certiorari in June 2012, effectively nullifying the amendment. Despite its invalidation and never taking effect, the initiative highlighted broader national debates on the role of international and religious laws in American courts, exemplified a wave of anti-Sharia legislation in the U.S. around 2010 driven by fears of 'creeping Sharia' amplified by conservative think tanks like the Center for Security Policy, influenced similar proposals in other states, and served as a flashpoint in discussions on religious freedom, judicial independence, anti-Muslim sentiment, and the limits of state authority in religious matters. Critics, including the ACLU and legal scholars, condemned it as xenophobic and unnecessary, noting that U.S. courts already prioritize the Constitution over foreign laws. The measure's defeat underscored judicial oversight of ballot initiatives and galvanized conservative activism on cultural issues. No similar measure has been reintroduced in Oklahoma following its invalidation, though it inspired similar efforts in other states. The controversy underscored the role of ballot initiatives in amplifying cultural and political divides, with ongoing criticism from civil rights groups for promoting religious bias under the guise of legal reform.