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

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.

As a matter of law, every judge in the United States is bound by the Constitution, federal law, state law, and judicial ethics. There is no public evidence that Judge Syed has stated he intends to apply religious law from the bench. That legal reality should remain clear.

Yet public scrutiny of judicial appointments is not only appropriate—it is essential. Judges exercise extraordinary authority over constitutional rights, criminal justice, family law, property disputes, and civil liberties. Americans have every right to examine a nominee's record, ask difficult questions, and insist that constitutional fidelity is absolute.

This debate ultimately reaches beyond one appointment or one state. It speaks to the future of the American judiciary itself. Conservatives have long argued that the courts should interpret the Constitution as written—not reshape it according to evolving political trends, ideological activism, or any external system of belief.

The Constitution has protected American liberty for nearly 250 years because it establishes one nation under one civil legal system. Equal justice depends on equal application of that law to every citizen.

California's courts should leave no room for doubt. Every judicial decision must rest on the Constitution, statutes enacted by elected legislatures, established legal precedent, and the facts before the court. Nothing else should influence the administration of justice.

Americans of every faith are free to worship according to their conscience. That freedom is guaranteed by the First Amendment and remains one of the nation's greatest strengths. But the authority of an American judge does not flow from any religious tradition—it flows from the Constitution.

That is the standard every judicial nominee should meet. That is the oath every judge must honor. And that is the principle every American, regardless of political party or religion, should expect their courts to defend without compromise.

Today's debates over judicial appointments should remind us why that design matters. Judges possess enormous authority over liberty, property, families, businesses, and constitutional rights. Citizens are therefore justified in examining nominees carefully, asking difficult questions, and demanding unwavering fidelity to the Constitution.

No nominee should be above public scrutiny. Governors appoint judges, but the public retains the right to evaluate those appointments and discuss the legal philosophies of those who will interpret the law.

The Constitution does not ask judges to abandon their faith. It asks them to set aside personal beliefs whenever they conflict with the judicial obligation to apply American law fairly and impartially.

That expectation protects every citizen regardless of religion or politics.

It protects minorities from discrimination.

It protects majorities from government favoritism.

Most importantly, it protects the rule of law itself.

America does not need competing legal systems. It does not need judges who reshape the Constitution to fit modern political fashions. It does not need ideological activism from either the left or the right.

It needs judges who faithfully interpret the law as written.

That principle should unite Americans across political and religious lines.

Our constitutional republic depends on judges whose first loyalty in the courtroom is not to political parties, advocacy organizations, personal philosophies, or religious doctrines—but to the Constitution of the United States.

The American flag flies over every courthouse for a reason. It represents one nation, one Constitution, and one system of justice. That principle has preserved American liberty for generations.

It must continue to do so for generations to come.