SB 1724, the “Preserving Oklahoma Values Act of 2026,” would create a new state policy aimed at preventing Oklahoma courts and other state adjudicative bodies from applying foreign law, legal codes, or legal systems when doing so would conflict with defined “Judeo-Christian Western rights and values.” The bill states legislative intent to protect citizens from laws contrary to the Oklahoma Constitution, the U.S. Constitution, or those shared values, and it defines those values to include due process, equal protection, religious freedom, free speech, press freedom, the right to keep and bear arms, privacy, and the right to marry as defined by the Oklahoma Constitution subject to federal law and U.S. Supreme Court precedent.
The bill would also void and make unenforceable any court ruling based in whole or in part on foreign law if the ruling violates those listed values. In addition, it would invalidate contract terms that choose foreign law or a foreign jurisdiction for disputes if that foreign legal system does not provide the specified rights and values. The measure includes an exception for corporations and other business entities that voluntarily contract to be governed by foreign law, and it expressly says it does not limit free exercise of religion or interfere with internal ecclesiastical matters of religious organizations.
If enacted, SB 1724 would affect Title 25 of the Oklahoma Statutes by adding a new section that governs how state courts, administrative bodies, and similar authorities treat foreign-law references in judgments and contracts. It would also reach private agreements, arbitration clauses, and jurisdiction-selection provisions, potentially limiting enforcement of certain international or foreign-law-based contractual arrangements in Oklahoma.
The available context shows little formal debate or recorded voting activity, so the overall sentiment cannot be measured from committee testimony or floor discussion. Based on the bill’s framing and language, it appears to be supported by sponsors who favor restricting foreign-law influence in Oklahoma law, while its broad references to “Western values” and the invalidation of foreign-law-based rulings and contracts suggest it could draw concern from legal, business, civil liberties, and international commerce interests.
Notable points of contention are likely to include the bill’s broad and value-laden definitions, especially the phrase “Judeo-Christian Western values,” the extent to which it could interfere with private contracting and arbitration, and whether it could create conflicts with constitutional principles, choice-of-law rules, or interstate and international commerce. The bill also raises questions about how courts would determine when a foreign-law-based ruling or contract term is sufficiently contrary to the listed rights to be voided.
SB 1724 would add a new statutory section to Title 25 that bars Oklahoma courts and related adjudicative bodies from enforcing rulings or contract provisions tied to foreign law when those rulings or provisions conflict with the bill’s defined rights and values. It would likely affect family law, commercial contracts, arbitration agreements, and any case involving choice-of-law or foreign jurisdiction clauses, while preserving exceptions for certain business entities and religious-organization matters.
There is no recorded committee transcript or vote history in the provided context, so there is no direct evidence of debate or opposition. The bill’s introduction and coauthorship suggest at least some legislative support, but the subject matter and broad restrictions indicate it may be polarizing, with supporters likely viewing it as a sovereignty and values measure and critics likely viewing it as overbroad or legally problematic.
The main points of contention are the bill’s expansive definition of foreign law, its reliance on the undefined and potentially subjective concept of “Judeo-Christian Western rights and values,” and its effect on contracts that select foreign law or foreign forums. Opponents may argue that it could disrupt private agreements, arbitration, and cross-border commerce, while supporters are likely to emphasize protecting Oklahoma residents from legal systems they view as inconsistent with constitutional and cultural values.