No Foreign-Rule Enforcement Act

Summary#

This bill, called the "No Shari'a Act," says U.S. courts must not enforce laws or rules from outside the United States if those foreign laws (including religious laws) would violate constitutional rights. Its main change is to bar courts and some arbitration tribunals from enforcing judgments, contracts, or family-law rules that rely on Shari'a or other foreign law when those rules conflict with the Constitution. The bill aims to make clear that only U.S. federal and state law governs courts and to protect constitutional rights.

  • Prohibits enforcement: Courts may not enforce any judgment, decree, or arbitration decision that relies on Shari'a or other foreign law if that enforcement would violate constitutional rights.
  • Contracts: Contract clauses that pick a foreign law to govern the contract remain valid unless enforcing that clause would violate constitutional rights.
  • Family law: Courts must not apply foreign law in marriage, divorce, child custody, adoption, or inheritance if it conflicts with fundamental rights or public policy.
  • Definitions: The bill defines "foreign law" to include any legal system from outside the U.S., and it defines "fundamental rights" to include due process, equal protection, free speech, free exercise of religion, and related family and property rights.
  • Implementation: The Attorney General must issue rules and provide judicial education to help courts apply the law uniformly.
  • Timing: The bill starts 180 days after it becomes law.

What it means for you#

  • Courts and judges: Must refuse to enforce court orders, arbitration awards, or parts of judgments that rely on foreign or religious law if enforcing them would violate constitutional rights. They will get new guidance and training from the Department of Justice.
  • People in family-law cases (marriage, divorce, custody, inheritance, adoption): Courts will not apply foreign law in these areas when it conflicts with constitutional rights. This could change outcomes in some cases where parties ask a court to follow foreign law.
  • Parties to contracts: You can still include a clause saying a contract is governed by a foreign law. But a court can refuse to enforce that clause if applying the chosen foreign law would violate constitutional rights.
  • Arbitration participants and private tribunals: Arbitration decisions that rely on foreign law could be refused enforcement by U.S. courts if they would violate constitutional rights.
  • Religious communities: The bill says individuals remain free to practice their religion and follow personal codes voluntarily. However, courts cannot enforce religious or foreign law when doing so would conflict with constitutional protections.
  • Government lawyers and court administrators: The Attorney General and court administrative office must produce rules and training materials. Courts may need to review more cases to determine whether foreign-law-based decisions conflict with constitutional rights.

Expenses#

The bill may increase administrative and training costs, but no official cost estimate is provided.

  • No publicly available information on overall federal cost estimates or a fiscal note.
  • The Attorney General and the Administrative Office of U.S. Courts must prepare regulations and judicial education, which would likely require staff time and program costs.
  • Courts may face added workload and legal review in cases that raise questions about whether applying foreign law would violate constitutional rights. This could increase litigation or judicial resources.
  • There is no explicit new fee or fine in the bill and no direct funding provided for education or rulemaking.

Proponents' View#

The bill’s text and findings suggest these reasons for the law:

  • The bill appears intended to reaffirm that the U.S. Constitution is the supreme law and to prevent foreign laws from undermining constitutional protections.
  • It aims to protect people (the bill names women, children, and vulnerable populations) from coercion or unequal treatment that could occur if foreign or religious law were enforced in U.S. courts.
  • The bill appears intended to create clear and uniform rules so courts nationwide apply the same standard when foreign law is involved.
  • It preserves private religious practice and voluntary adherence to religious rules, while limiting court enforcement of any foreign or religious law that conflicts with constitutional rights.
  • It keeps contract choice-of-law clauses generally valid, subject to the constitutional-rights check.

Opponents' View#

The bill text raises several potential concerns or questions about how it would work in practice:

  • One concern is vagueness: the definition of "foreign law" includes religious law, but the bill does not give detailed rules for how courts should decide whether a specific foreign-law rule conflicts with constitutional rights.
  • It may increase litigation and judicial workload because courts will need to examine whether applying a foreign law would violate constitutional rights in each disputed case.
  • The requirement for the Attorney General to issue rules and provide education leaves important implementation details to later rulemaking, which is not described in the bill.
  • One possible trade-off is tension with voluntary private agreements and religious arbitration: the bill allows private practice but limits court enforcement, which could create uncertainty for people who want their private religious or foreign-law-based decisions enforced.
  • The bill focuses on preventing enforcement of foreign law but does not specify procedures or standards for balancing conflicts between state law, federal law, and foreign law beyond the constitutional-rights test. It is unclear how lower courts should apply the test in specific contexts.