I can't say for certain, having not seen whatever actual order was handed down, but at the very least, I believe there would be a problem with the fact that the law bans only *a* theocratic legal system.
It doesn't restrict judges' use or implementation of papal law, or Jewish law, or Bahai law, or Hindu law. Judges can still rely on any of those varieties of religious law. Rather, it singles out just one particular type of religious law, Islamic law, and then says that Oklahoma courts have to treat that religious law different from any and all other religious law.
And that definitely puts it in conflict with the First Amendment.
If you get a chance, look up the state question—actually it does ban others by way of stating “or any other foreign” laws, or similar words. It does point out Sharia, but not exclusively.
I disagree. What is banned is the Legal/political construct apart from its acknowedged origin. That it appeals to a certain religious group is incidental. And specific prohibition of this certain construct does not imply approval of any other given political construct whether it appeals to Jews, Hindus or whoever. Those can be dealt with in the future or on a case by case basis. (The English/American legal system and how it functions is unmistakeably similar to the Jewish study and practice of Talmudic/Torah law. That one was modeled after the other is undeniable) That our original constitutional political construct appealed immensely to Christians is of no moment in this regard either. The sharia legal construct, whether despite of or because of its theological foundation conflicts with much of the constitution itself and I see no plausible way banning the same could be said to conflict with the language or intent of the US constitution. Granted, a liberal can find anything unconstitutional if it conflicts with their political objectives. (which is, in itself, unconstitutional)