Bill bars U.S. courts from enforcing foreign law—but definition is dangerously broad

What it does

This bill prohibits U.S. courts and federal agencies from recognizing or enforcing foreign laws, religious laws, or customs that conflict with the U.S. Constitution—including practices like forced marriage, female genital mutilation, honor violence, and religious law systems that deny equal protection. It bars courts from enforcing contracts that choose foreign law to govern disputes, from recognizing foreign court decisions based on incompatible law, and from dismissing cases on grounds that a foreign forum would be more convenient. The bill is framed as protecting constitutional liberties and preventing foreign legal systems from being applied in American courts.

Why we flagged it

The bill's operative mechanism is a blanket prohibition on U.S. courts recognizing foreign or religious law deemed incompatible with the Constitution. While framed as protecting liberty, the mechanism is a restriction on judicial discretion and choice-of-law doctrine, with broad definitional reach.

What the text implies

• The definition of 'incompatible' foreign law is not limited to human-rights violations; it includes any law that 'does not recognize and protect the same or equivalent individual rights' as the U.S. Constitution, potentially capturing legitimate foreign commercial, family, or inheritance law.
• The ban on forum non conveniens dismissals (Section 5(e)) may force U.S. courts to hear cases with minimal U.S. connection, increasing litigation costs for parties and court burden, while the 'sufficient protections' standard is undefined and subject to judicial interpretation.
• The prohibition on enforcing contracts with foreign-law choice-of-law clauses may disrupt international commerce, Islamic finance, and cross-border family arrangements, even where parties knowingly agreed to foreign law.
• Section 4(3)(G) exempts 'reasonable parental discipline' from the violence prohibition, creating a carve-out whose scope is undefined and potentially at odds with evolving child-protection standards.
• The bill does not define 'religious law' or 'custom' with precision; it could be read to restrict enforcement of agreements based on religious principles (e.g., Jewish arbitration, Islamic wills) even when parties consent.

Section numbers refer to the bill text the analysis read — linked under Primary records below.

Who it affects

The bill protects citizens from harmful practices (forced marriage, FGM, honor violence) and ensures U.S. constitutional rights apply in American courts—a genuine public benefit. However, the definition of 'incompatible' foreign law is sweeping and vague, potentially blocking legitimate dispute resolution (e.g., Islamic finance contracts, inheritance law), and the ban on forum non conveniens dismissals may trap citizens in U.S. litigation when they have stronger ties elsewhere, raising access-to

Named in the bill

U.S. courts, federal adjudicative bodies, foreign courts, Federal Arbitration Act

Where it stands

7 cosponsors: 7 Republicans.

• Jun 30, 2026 — Introduced · Congress.gov: “Introduced in House”
• Jun 30, 2026 — Referred to House Committee on the Judiciary · Congress.gov: “Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary”

Dates and quoted wording are Congress.gov's action record; the timeline shows status changes, not every procedural step.