Preserving Our Constitution Act of 2026

Section 3 and Section 5(a), (b), (c), and (d) prohibit United States courts and administrative bodies from recognizing or enforcing any foreign law, religious law, custom, or practice that conflicts with the U.S. Constitution, including contractual provisions, choice-of-law agreements, and foreign decisions. This could be considered positive because it ensures that individuals within the jurisdiction of the United States remain fully protected by American constitutional rights and due process.

Section 4(3)(A) through (K) explicitly defines prohibited incompatible laws and practices to include the prejudicial treatment of women or persons of a particular race or religion, forced or underage marriages, violence against women and children, female genital mutilation, and cruel and unusual punishments. This might be considered a positive outcome for individuals and groups because it explicitly bars the enforcement of harmful practices that violate fundamental human rights and safety.

Section 5(e) establishes that a court shall not dismiss an action on the grounds of forum non conveniens if the alternative forum fails to provide procedures and substantive protections that ensure each litigant's constitutional rights, such as equal protection and due process, will not be denied. This is a potential benefit for people because it protects litigants from being forced into foreign or alternative legal systems that do not respect basic constitutional rights.

Section 5(a) and (b) prohibit federal courts and agencies from enforcing contractual provisions or agreements that choose a foreign law or forum governed by laws described in the Act. This could be viewed as a negative impact for parties who enter into international business contracts or private agreements relying on foreign legal frameworks, as their chosen terms and dispute resolution forums will be invalidated in U.S. adjudicative bodies.

Section 8(b) explicitly states that nothing in the Act may be construed to create a cause of action for injunctive relief or compensatory damages. This might be considered a burden or negative outcome for individuals because it denies them a direct legal mechanism or financial remedy to sue specifically under this statute if they are personally harmed by a violation of its provisions.