ERRPA

Bill Number

H.R. 5727

Origin Chamber

House

Congress

119th Congress, Session 1

Policy Area

Crime and Law Enforcement

Status

Introduced

Latest Action

2025-10-10: Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.

Last Updated

2025-12-09T15:35:10Z

AI-Generated Summary

Purpose of the Legislation

The End Racial and Religious Profiling Act of 2025 (ERRPA) aims to prohibit and eliminate discriminatory practices by law enforcement, specifically targeting racial profiling. It defines racial profiling broadly as relying on a person's actual or perceived race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, gender, gender identity, or sexual orientation when deciding to investigate or interact with them, unless linked to specific criminal activity based on reliable information. The act seeks to promote fair policing through policies, data collection, training, and enforcement mechanisms.

Key Provisions

• Prohibition and Enforcement (Title I):
• Bans racial profiling by all federal, state, local, and tribal law enforcement agents and agencies.
• Allows the U.S. government or affected individuals to file civil lawsuits in state or federal court for declaratory relief (court statements clarifying rights) or injunctive relief (court orders to stop the practice).
• Targets employers, individual officers, and supervisors; evidence of disparate impact (unequal effects on protected groups) serves as initial proof of violation.
• Courts may award attorney's fees to winning non-government plaintiffs.

• Federal Law Enforcement Requirements (Title II):
• Federal agencies must adopt policies prohibiting profiling, provide training, collect data on interactions, handle complaints, and end any existing permissive practices.
• Policies are overseen by the Attorney General (head of the Department of Justice).

• State, Local, and Tribal Requirements (Title III):
• Ties federal grants (under programs like Byrne Justice Assistance and Cops on the Beat) to certifications that recipients have anti-profiling policies, including bans, training, data collection, and complaint/audit systems.
• Attorney General issues regulations for fair complaint procedures and audits; non-compliance leads to withheld funding.
• Funds a 2-year demonstration project (up to 5 grants) in minority-heavy areas to test data collection on "hit rates" (success rate of searches finding contraband, broken down by protected characteristics).
• Offers grants for best practices, such as training, technology for data analysis, feedback systems to spot risky officers, and complaint programs; prioritizes small/rural agencies.
• Authorizes necessary appropriations.

• Data Collection and Reporting (Title IV):
• Attorney General mandates standardized data collection on all routine investigatory activities (e.g., stops, searches, interviews), including perceived race/ethnicity/national origin/gender/religion, date/time/location, but excluding personal identifiers.
• Data must be kept for 4 years, analyzed for disparities (e.g., stop rates vs. population, search frequencies, hit rates), with annual public reports from the Bureau of Justice Statistics.
• Strict privacy rules limit data use to anti-profiling efforts, restrict access, and exempt it from Freedom of Information Act requests except in specific cases.

• Additional Oversight (Title V):
• Attorney General issues further regulations as needed and submits annual reports to Congress on profiling data, policy implementation, and recommendations.

• Miscellaneous (Title VI):
• Severability clause ensures the act survives if parts are ruled unconstitutional.
• Savings clause preserves existing civil rights laws (e.g., Section 1983 lawsuits, Civil Rights Act of 1964) and respects tribal sovereignty.

Significant Changes to Existing Law

• Introduces a nationwide statutory ban on racial profiling, expanding beyond current constitutional protections (e.g., Equal Protection Clause) by including religion, gender identity, and sexual orientation explicitly.
• Mandates comprehensive data collection and analysis, which is not uniformly required under prior laws like the Traffic Stops Statistics Study Act of 2000 (which was limited and expired).
• Conditions federal law enforcement grants on anti-profiling certifications, a new accountability tool absent in most existing grant programs.
• Establishes disparate impact as prima facie evidence in enforcement, lowering the proof burden compared to intentional discrimination standards in cases like Whren v. United States (1996).
• Creates demonstration projects and best practices grants, building on but formalizing voluntary efforts under the Department of Justice's guidance.

Potential Impacts

• Government Agencies: Federal, state, local, and tribal law enforcement must invest in training, technology, and data systems, potentially increasing administrative costs but improving accountability; non-compliance risks lost federal funding (e.g., billions in justice grants annually).
• Citizens: Enhances protections against biased policing, particularly for racial/ethnic/religious minorities and LGBTQ+ individuals, by enabling easier lawsuits and public data transparency; may reduce unwarranted stops/searches, fostering trust in law enforcement.
• International Relations: Minimal direct impact, though improved U.S. civil rights practices could bolster America's global image on human rights and anti-discrimination efforts.

Main Stakeholders Affected

• Law Enforcement Agencies and Officers: Federal (e.g., FBI, DEA), state, local police departments, and tribal forces face new policy mandates, data reporting, and potential lawsuits.
• Department of Justice and Attorney General: Oversees regulations, audits, grants, and reports, expanding its civil rights enforcement role.
• Communities and Civil Rights Groups: Racial/ethnic/religious minorities, LGBTQ+ individuals, and advocacy organizations (e.g., ACLU, NAACP) benefit from remedies, data access, and input in consultations.
• Taxpayers and Governments: State/local entities may need budget reallocations for compliance; federal appropriations fund grants and projects.
• Research and Academic Institutions: Involved in data evaluation and analysis.

Notable Legal, Constitutional, or Political Implications

• Legal: Strengthens civil rights enforcement by codifying disparate impact proof, potentially increasing litigation against agencies; privacy safeguards align with Fourth Amendment concerns over data collection.
• Constitutional: Could face challenges under federalism (e.g., conditioning grants on state policies) or free speech (training mandates), but savings clause protects against overriding core rights; upholds Equal Protection by targeting bias without racial quotas.
• Political: Advances policing reform amid debates on racial justice (e.g., post-George Floyd), but may spark backlash from law enforcement unions over burdens; requires bipartisan support for appropriations and could influence future civil rights bills.

This summary was generated by AI and may contain inaccuracies. Refer to the official source document for the authoritative text.

Sponsor

Rep. Cohen, Steve [D-TN-9]

Recent Actions

• 2025-10-10: Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
• 2025-10-10: Introduced in House
• 2025-10-10: Introduced in House

Bill Versions

• End Racial and Religious Profiling Act of 2025 — issued 2025-10-10 — PDF (21 pages)