Keith Self (R-TX)
Preserving Our Constitution Act of 2026
A Republican bill with 8 Republican cosponsors · See all 8 cosponsors
Last activity — Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
In committee
Introduced and handed to a committee in the chamber it started in.
The committee holds it, and most bills are never heard from again. A hearing or a committee vote would be news; silence is the usual outcome, and it kills the bill without anyone voting against it.
Its path through Congress
- Introduced
- In Committee
What this bill would do
This bill, known as the Preserving Our Constitution Act of 2026, aims to protect individual liberties guaranteed by the United States Constitution. It prohibits federal adjudicative bodies, courts, and judges from recognizing or enforcing any foreign law, religious law, custom, or practice that conflicts with the U.S. Constitution and federal laws. The legislation explicitly bars the enforcement of conflicting contracts, choice-of-law provisions, foreign court decisions, and civil procedures. Additionally, it prevents courts from dismissing actions on certain venue grounds if alternative forums lack constitutional protections for litigants. Finally, failure to comply with the act constitutes reversible error on appeal, while ensuring that the enforcement of certain arbitration agreements remains intact unless they violate constitutional rights.
Yes· 3 of 7
- Scored +6
Would women be better off under this?
Provides explicit protections for women by banning the enforcement of customs or laws permitting prejudicial treatment or violence against women.
- Scored +6
Does this narrow the gap between how men and women are treated?
The legislation explicitly prohibits the enforcement of laws or customs permitting forced marriages, violence against women, and female genital mutilation.
- Scored +5
Would children be better off under this?
Protects children by prohibiting practices such as underage marriage and violence against children.
The opposite
- Scored -2
Would business owners be better off under this?
May cause uncertainty for businesses engaging in international contracts containing foreign choice-of-law provisions.
- Scored -2
Does this strengthen ties with allied countries?
Invalidating certain foreign legal decisions and choice-of-law provisions could create friction in international legal and commercial cooperation.
- Scored -2
Does this make trade with other countries easier?
Prohibiting U.S. courts from enforcing certain foreign choice-of-law provisions or international business agreements may complicate cross-border commerce.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
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.
Potential Negative Impacts for People
-
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.
Groups and Interests Ranking
Every group the model scored this bill for, from -10 to +10. Tap or hover a score for the reason it gave.
- Demographic And Interest Groups
- Would women be better off under this? — Provides explicit protections for women by banning the enforcement of customs or laws permitting prejudicial treatment or violence against women. Would children be better off under this? — Protects children by prohibiting practices such as underage marriage and violence against children. Would immigrants be better off under this? — Protects individuals, including immigrants, by ensuring they remain fully protected by American constitutional rights within U.S. jurisdictions. Would business owners be better off under this? — May cause uncertainty for businesses engaging in international contracts containing foreign choice-of-law provisions.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this protect the right to fair treatment by the courts? — Ensures that litigants are protected by U.S. constitutional rights and prevents forum non conveniens dismissals to forums lacking due process. Does this give the federal government more power? — The act sets a broad federal standard restricting how courts and administrative bodies handle foreign and religious laws.
- Social Issues And Justice
- Does this narrow the gap between how men and women are treated? — The legislation explicitly prohibits the enforcement of laws or customs permitting forced marriages, violence against women, and female genital mutilation. Does this narrow racial gaps in how people are treated? — The bill bars the recognition of laws or customs that practice prejudicial treatment based on race, religion, or ethnicity.
- National Security And Foreign Policy
- Does this strengthen ties with allied countries? — Invalidating certain foreign legal decisions and choice-of-law provisions could create friction in international legal and commercial cooperation. Does this make trade with other countries easier? — Prohibiting U.S. courts from enforcing certain foreign choice-of-law provisions or international business agreements may complicate cross-border commerce.
- 11/9/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 8/31/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 6/30/2026
- Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
- 6 Cosponsors added.
- Introduced in House
Earl CarterRepublican · Georgia
Elijah CraneRepublican · Arizona
Clay FullerRepublican · Georgia
Paul GosarRepublican · Arizona
Pat HarriganRepublican · North Carolina
Anna Paulina LunaRepublican · Florida
Barry MooreRepublican · Alabama
Scott PerryRepublican · Pennsylvania