Gov. Newsom Appoints Sharia Judge to LA Superior Court

Blue Lives Matter:

NEWSOM’S LATEST JUDICIAL PICK RAISES SERIOUS QUESTIONS ABOUT CONSTITUTIONAL FIDELITY

By: Capitol Times, July 6, 2026:

California Governor Gavin Newsom’s appointment of Haaris M. Syed to the Los Angeles County Superior Court has reignited a debate that extends far beyond one judicial nomination. At its core lies a question every American should be asking: When a judge takes the bench, what must come first—the United States Constitution or any personal belief system?

Before joining the Superior Court, Syed sought a religious accommodation from Los Angeles County after arguing that mandatory participation in the county’s retirement investment program conflicted with his Islamic beliefs regarding interest-bearing investments. His legal challenge was based on his understanding of Islamic financial principles prohibiting riba, or interest.

Following his elevation to the bench, the Council on American-Islamic Relations–Los Angeles (CAIR-LA) publicly celebrated the appointment, describing Syed as an attorney of integrity and recognizing his advancement within California’s judiciary.

Those are the facts. The public debate is about what they mean.

Americans are right to expect that every judge—regardless of political affiliation, personal ideology, or religious faith—will uphold one legal authority above all others: the Constitution of the United States. That expectation is not controversial; it is the very foundation of our constitutional republic.

Every judge swears an oath to support and defend the Constitution—not a political party, not a social movement, and not any religious doctrine. The American courtroom is governed by constitutional law enacted through democratic institutions. It is not governed by religious legal codes or personal theological convictions.

This principle applies equally to everyone. A Christian judge cannot replace constitutional law with biblical doctrine. A Jewish judge cannot substitute religious law for constitutional law. A Muslim judge cannot substitute any religious legal principles for constitutional law. The same standard applies to every judge, every case, and every courtroom.

California’s leaders should understand why Americans demand that this principle remain unquestioned. Public confidence in the judiciary depends on knowing that justice is administered according to the Constitution alone. When judicial nominees have previously sought government accommodations rooted in religious obligations, it is reasonable for citizens to ask how those obligations relate to the constitutional oath they will swear as judges.