Preserving Our Constitution Act of 2026
- Sponsor
- Rep. Self, Keith [R-TX-3]
- Committees
- Judiciary Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Jun 30, 2026
Bottom line
The bill aims to explicitly safeguard U.S. constitutional liberties by preventing federal courts and agencies from applying foreign or religious laws deemed incompatible with American legal principles and individual rights.
What it actually does
This bill prohibits federal adjudicative bodies, including courts and administrative agencies, from recognizing or enforcing any foreign law, religious law, custom, or practice that conflicts with or is incompatible with the U.S. Constitution and federal laws. It provides specific definitions for what constitutes 'foreign law' and 'religious law, custom, or practice,' explicitly listing practices such as prejudicial treatment based on protected characteristics, restrictions on religious freedom or speech, plural or forced marriages, certain forms of violence, and cruel and unusual punishments as incompatible. The bill also prevents the enforcement of contractual choice-of-law or forum provisions that would apply such incompatible laws.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue the bill is necessary to explicitly affirm the supremacy of the U.S. Constitution and federal law within the American legal system, preventing the erosion of individual liberties by foreign or religious legal systems that may not uphold equivalent protections. They contend it protects vulnerable populations from practices like forced marriage or female genital mutilation and ensures legal consistency across federal adjudicative bodies.
Opponents contend
Opponents might argue that the bill is largely redundant, as U.S. courts already operate under the supremacy of the Constitution and federal law, and that existing legal frameworks adequately address conflicts of law. They may also contend that some provisions could be overly broad or lead to unintended consequences, potentially interfering with legitimate international legal cooperation or the recognition of foreign judgments in commercial or family law contexts where no constitutional conflict genuinely exists.
The bill is short and its core provisions are easily understandable, making it accessible for a quick evaluation.
Section 3
Prohibition of Laws Incompatible with the U.S. Constitution
This section broadly prohibits any federal adjudicative body, including courts, judges, magistrates, and administrative bodies, from recognizing or enforcing any foreign law, religious law, custom, or practice that conflicts with or is incompatible with the U.S. Constitution and federal laws, rules, and regulations promulgated pursuant thereto. It establishes a clear boundary for the application of non-U.S. legal systems within the federal jurisdiction, asserting the supremacy of American constitutional principles.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue this provision is essential to explicitly affirm the supremacy of U.S. law and protect individual rights from foreign legal systems that may not offer equivalent protections, ensuring legal consistency and safeguarding American values.
Critics contend
Critics might contend that this provision is largely declaratory of existing legal principles, as U.S. courts already prioritize the Constitution. They may argue it could create unnecessary complications in areas like international commercial law or family law where foreign judgments are routinely recognized without conflict.
Tradeoffs
This provision balances the desire to protect U.S. constitutional principles against potential implications for international legal comity and the recognition of foreign legal systems in specific contexts.
Section 4
Definitions of 'Foreign Law' and 'Religious Law, Custom, or Practice'
This section defines 'foreign law' as any law from outside the U.S. that does not recognize equivalent individual rights and liberties as the U.S. Constitution. It defines 'religious law, custom, or practice' as any law, rule, or regulation implementing a religious system or ethnic/tribal custom. Crucially, it provides a non-exhaustive list of specific practices considered incompatible, including prejudicial treatment based on protected characteristics, restrictions on religious freedom or speech, plural/forced/underage marriages, violence against women and children (excluding reasonable parental discipline), politically/religiously motivated violence, cruel and unusual punishments (e.g., amputation, stoning), female genital mutilation, and human sacrifice.
Section 5
Specific Prohibitions on Application and Enforcement
This section details various scenarios where incompatible laws (as defined in Section 4) cannot be applied or enforced by federal adjudicative bodies. These include prohibiting the enforcement of contractual choice-of-law or forum provisions that would apply such laws (subsections a and b), preventing the recognition or enforcement of motions or petitions that violate the Act (subsection c), and disallowing the recognition or enforcement of foreign court decisions governed by or applying such laws (subsection d). It also restricts dismissal of actions on grounds of forum non conveniens if an alternative forum would deny constitutional rights (subsection e).
This section states that it is the sense of Congress that Section 4, which defines 'foreign law' and 'religious law, custom, or practice' and lists incompatible practices, sets forth the strong public policy of the United States.
Section 6
Why it matters:It is standard legislative practice to include non-binding statements of intent. Here, it serves to guide judicial interpretation by emphasizing the fundamental nature of the listed incompatible practices as contrary to U.S. public policy, without creating new enforceable law directly.
Case for: Supporters would argue it provides clear legislative intent, guiding courts in interpreting the scope and application of the prohibitions by emphasizing the fundamental nature of the listed incompatible practices as against U.S. public policy, thereby strengthening the bill's protective purpose.
Case against: Critics might argue that a 'sense of Congress' is not legally binding and its inclusion here might be seen as an attempt to lend undue weight to specific definitions without subjecting them to the full force of statutory law, or that it is simply redundant given existing public policy principles.
Estimated impact: Moderate impact on judicial interpretation, reinforcing the legislative intent behind the definitions of incompatible laws and potentially influencing how courts weigh these definitions in practice.
This section includes a standard severability clause, ensuring that if any provision of the Act is found unconstitutional, all other provisions remain in full force and effect. It also clarifies that nothing in the Act shall be construed to impair the enforcement of arbitration agreements or awards pursuant to the Federal Arbitration Act, except to the extent enforcement would violate rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution.
Section 7
Why it matters:It is standard legislative practice to include severability clauses to ensure the resilience of the law against legal challenges. The arbitration exception is a technical clarification to prevent unintended conflicts with existing federal statutes, ensuring that the bill's scope is properly understood in relation to established arbitration law.
Case for: Supporters would argue this clause is crucial for legal stability and predictability, ensuring that the bill's core purpose is not undermined by a challenge to a single provision, while also respecting the established framework for arbitration unless constitutional rights are directly violated.
Case against: No specific opposition is typically raised against standard severability clauses. Some critics might argue that the arbitration exception, while seemingly protective, could still lead to complex litigation over what constitutes a 'violation of constitutional rights' in the arbitration context, potentially creating new legal ambiguities.
Estimated impact: Ensures the long-term legal viability of the Act and clarifies its scope regarding arbitration, potentially leading to litigation over the constitutional limits of arbitration enforcement in specific cases.