Preserving Our Constitution Act of 2026: New Rules Bar Foreign and Religious Laws from U.S. Courts

The Preserving Our Constitution Act of 2026 sets a hard line in the sand for the American legal system. Under this bill, no federal court, judge, or government agency would be allowed to recognize or enforce any foreign law, religious code, or tribal custom that conflicts with the U.S. Constitution. The bill specifically targets foreign legal systems that don't protect individual liberties the way we do here, and it lists a range of practices—from discriminatory treatment of women to cruel and unusual punishments like lashing or stoning—that can never be enforced or recognized on U.S. soil (Sections 3 and 4).

The Fine Print on Contracts and Courts

This isn't just about high-level court cases; it could land right on your desk if you do business internationally. Section 5 of the bill says that U.S. courts cannot enforce any contract that chooses a foreign or religious law as its governing rule if that law doesn't match up with our Constitutional protections. For example, if a tech worker signs a contract with a foreign firm that requires disputes to be settled in a forum using laws that don't recognize U.S. due process, a U.S. judge would be prohibited from enforcing that agreement. The bill also changes a rule called forum non conveniens. Normally, a judge might dismiss a case if they think a foreign court is a more convenient place for the trial. This bill stops that dismissal if the foreign court doesn't offer the same constitutional rights we have, effectively keeping more cases in the U.S. court system.

Broad Definitions and Real-World Friction

While the bill aims to protect fundamental rights, its broad language creates some gray areas for everyday life. The definition of "religious law, custom, or practice" is wide-reaching, covering any rule that implements a religious belief or tribal custom (Section 4). This could lead to a bit of a legal headache for religious minorities or immigrant communities. For instance, if a family has a private agreement based on their faith regarding inheritance or marriage, and a court decides that agreement is "prejudicial" or "incompatible" with the Constitution, that agreement could be thrown out entirely. Because the bill doesn't define exactly what "incompatible" looks like in every scenario, it leaves a lot of power in the hands of individual judges to decide which cultural or religious practices cross the line.

Challenges in the Courtroom

If you find yourself in a legal battle where this act is ignored, your main path for fixing it is through an appeal (Section 8). This means the bill doesn't let you sue the government for damages or get a quick court order to stop a violation immediately; you have to wait for the case to play out and then try to get the decision reversed later. For a small business owner or a family in a dispute, this could mean a longer, more expensive road through the legal system. The bill tries to strike a balance by stating it won't mess with standard arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act, but even then, it adds a caveat: those arbitration awards still can't violate your Constitutional rights (Section 7). It’s a move that prioritizes the U.S. Constitution above all else, but it might make international legal and personal dealings a lot more complicated.