What alternatives do policymakers suggest for addressing concerns about foreign or discriminatory religious arbitration?

1. Narrow enforceability by tightening public‑policy review

One set of policy prescriptions urges courts to redefine the scope of enforceability for religious arbitration awards by empowering public‑policy grounds to vacate awards that violate core secular norms—essentially rebalancing deference so religious tribunals are not insulated when outcomes contravene fundamental public policies ^{[4] [1]}.

2. Use unconscionability and contract doctrine as a safety valve

Scholars recommend expanding unconscionability analysis and other contract doctrines to police religious arbitration clauses—voiding agreements procured under pressure, hidden in boilerplate, or binding non‑adherents—so ordinary contract law can prevent coerced submission to a discriminatory religious forum ^{[1] [5] [6]}.

3. Require neutral‑principles review to avoid entanglement

Another recurring proposal is for courts to assess religious awards under “neutral principles” of law—evaluating contractual and arbitration rules without interpreting theology—thereby permitting review of procedural fairness while minimizing Establishment Clause entanglement ^{[7] [8] [3]}.

4. Statutory reforms to clarify FAA boundaries and consumer protections

Some commentators urge legislative action to clarify how the FAA applies to faith‑based tribunals and to create statutory protections for consumers and employees—such as mandatory disclosures, cooling‑off periods, or carve‑outs for certain civil rights claims—thereby resolving doctrinal confusion that currently leaves religious arbitration in a grey zone ^{[5] [9] [10]}.

5. Court‑annexed or secular ADR alternatives as institutional substitutes

Policymakers point to court‑annexed arbitration and mediation schemes as institutional alternatives that preserve efficiency while offering secular oversight; RAND’s court‑annexed designs show how courts can structure ADR to protect procedural rights without forcing full litigation for every dispute ^{[11] [2]}.

6. Procedural safeguards: transparency, representation, and appeal rights

Proposals stress bolstering procedural safeguards inside arbitration—imposing written rules, enforcing discovery norms, ensuring counsel access, and preserving limited judicial review—so that religious forums that remain voluntary still meet minimum fairness benchmarks ^{[7] [8] [9]}.

7. Recognize religious arbitration’s value but limit its reach

A countervailing strand in the literature argues courts should respect party autonomy and the value some communities gain from faith‑based dispute resolution, recommending selective recognition where consent is genuine and protections are present rather than blanket bans; this “counter‑narrative” urges doctrine that accommodates alternative values without abandoning oversight ^{[2] [12]}.

8. Political and diplomatic dimensions: depoliticize and target remedies

In the international and policy realm, observers advise decoupling religious‑freedom rhetoric from partisan agendas when crafting remedies for foreign‑seated or transnational religious tribunals, and recommend targeted, evidence‑based measures (e.g., enforcement limits for foreign awards that violate core rights) instead of sweeping political posturing ^[13].

Each alternative carries tradeoffs: greater judicial review risks Establishment Clause entanglement and may collide with FAA deference ^{[3] [5]}, while lighter regulation can leave vulnerable parties bound to discriminatory forums ^{[6] [10]}. The recommended path in the sources is pragmatic pluralism—combine statutory clarifications and consumer protections, require neutral‑principles review and procedural safeguards, and where appropriate channel disputes to secular, court‑linked ADR—so that religious autonomy and constitutional protections coexist without permitting enforcement of discriminatory or foreign awards that violate fundamental public policy ^{[1] [11] [7]}.