End Racial Profiling Act: Provisions, Evolution, and Status

The End Racial Profiling Act is a federal bill that would prohibit law enforcement at every level of government from relying on race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, gender, gender identity, or sexual orientation when deciding whom to stop, search, or investigate. It would also require nationwide data collection on stops, let people sue for profiling in federal or state court, and condition major federal law enforcement grants on compliance. First introduced in 2001 and reintroduced in nearly every Congress since, it has never been enacted.¹

What the Bill Would Do

The core prohibition, drawn from the 2023 Senate version (S. 1084), bars any law enforcement practice that relies “to any degree” on actual or perceived race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, gender, gender identity, or sexual orientation when selecting individuals for routine investigatory activity or setting the scope of law enforcement action. A narrow exception applies when there is trustworthy information linking a person with a specific characteristic to a particular identified criminal incident or scheme.²

The activities covered are wide-ranging: interviews, traffic and pedestrian stops, frisks and body searches, searches of property and vehicles, data collection and analysis, immigration-related workplace investigations, and inspections of individuals entering the United States.³

A Private Right to Sue

Anyone injured by profiling could sue in federal or state court for declaratory or injunctive relief. Suits could be brought against the government body employing the officer, the officer, or any person with supervisory authority over the officer. A showing of disparate impact on people with protected characteristics would establish a presumption that a violation occurred, shifting the burden to the defendant. Prevailing plaintiffs could recover attorney’s fees and expert fees.²

That standard is a substantial departure from current law. Plaintiffs today generally must prove intentional discrimination, a high bar. Allowing statistical disparity to serve as presumptive proof would make profiling claims meaningfully easier to bring.⁴

Grant Money as Leverage

State, local, and tribal agencies would have to certify that they maintain anti-profiling policies, conduct required training, collect the mandated data, and participate in administrative complaint or independent audit procedures to receive money from the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program and the Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) program. The Attorney General could withhold funds from agencies out of compliance, and private parties could present evidence of noncompliance to the Department of Justice.²

Data Collection

The Attorney General would have to issue data collection regulations within six months of enactment. All federal, state, local, and tribal law enforcement agencies would record data on routine investigatory activities, broken down by the officer’s perception of the person’s race, ethnicity, national origin, gender, and religion, along with the date, time, and location of each stop. Agencies would keep the data for at least four years.⁵

Three years after enactment, the Bureau of Justice Statistics would begin annual reports to Congress analyzing stop rates relative to population, “hit rates” (how often searches turn up contraband), and how often searches occur. Personally identifiable information could not be released publicly or disclosed under the Freedom of Information Act, except for specific litigation purposes or when an individual requests their own information.³

Current Status

The most recent version, called the End Racial and Religious Profiling Act, was introduced in the House on October 10, 2025, by Representative Steve Cohen of Tennessee as H.R. 5727 in the 119th Congress. No cosponsors are listed.¹ No version of the bill has ever received a floor vote in either chamber. Its provisions were also folded, in full, into Title III, Subtitle A of the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act, which passed the House but failed in the Senate.⁶

How the Bill Has Evolved Since 2001

Senator Russell Feingold, Representative John Conyers, and former Senator Frank Lautenberg introduced an earlier version in the Congress preceding the 107th, then reintroduced it as S. 989, the End Racial Profiling Act of 2001. At an August 2001 Senate hearing, the bill had at least 15 cosponsors in the Senate and 61 in the House.⁷ Momentum stalled after the September 11 attacks. Feingold, Senator Jon Corzine, Conyers, and Republican Representative Chris Shays reintroduced it in February 2004 with over 100 cosponsors.⁸

Senator Benjamin Cardin of Maryland later became the lead Senate sponsor, introducing the End Racial Profiling Act of 2013 as S. 1038. A subcommittee hearing was held in December 2014, but the bill went no further.⁹ In April 2015, Cardin and Conyers introduced a version that formally expanded the scope to cover profiling based on religion, gender, sexual orientation, and gender identity in addition to race, ethnicity, and national origin, and the bill was renamed the End Racial and Religious Profiling Act.¹⁰ Senator Chris Van Hollen joined Cardin to introduce it again as S. 411 in 2017, followed by further reintroductions in 2021 and 2023.⁵

Support

The American Civil Liberties Union has been among the bill’s most active advocates, organizing lobbying efforts and providing testimony at Senate hearings.¹¹ The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights submitted a coalition letter in May 2021 urging Senate passage, arguing that profiling erodes trust between police and communities, undermines investigations, and relies on stereotypes rather than behavior. The letter cited research finding that Black and Latino drivers are significantly more likely to be searched during traffic stops than white drivers despite not being more likely to possess contraband, and that police are twice as likely to threaten or use force against Black and Hispanic residents compared with white residents.¹²

Opposition

The Fraternal Order of Police, which reports more than 297,000 members, has been the bill’s most prominent opponent since National Vice President Steve Young testified against S. 989 in August 2001.¹³ Its objections have stayed largely the same across the bill’s history:

The legislation is redundant because the Equal Protection Clause already prohibits racial profiling and existing civil rights statutes offer remedies.
The prohibition on using race “to any degree” is overbroad and could impede legitimate uses of suspect descriptions or behavioral profiling.
Treating statistical disparity as presumptive evidence of illegal profiling sets a “terrible precedent” that ignores local crime rates and demographics.
Data collection mandates would divert officers from core duties, and requiring officers to record race could itself heighten tension.
Increased scrutiny over profiling had already reduced traffic stops and arrests in cities like Cincinnati and Minneapolis, which the FOP linked to rising crime.

The FOP has said it opposes stopping individuals based solely on race, with a representative acknowledging that “racism is never a legitimate law enforcement tool,” while maintaining that disproportionate stop statistics often reflect where crime occurs.¹⁴

What Fills the Gap Without a Statute

With no federal anti-profiling law on the books, the rules for federal officers have been set by executive branch guidance that shifts with each administration. In June 2003, the Bush administration issued guidance declaring that consideration of race or ethnicity in routine federal law enforcement decisions was “absolutely forbidden,” while carving out a broad exception for “terrorist identification.”¹⁵ The Obama administration updated the guidance in December 2014, and the Biden administration revised it again in May 2023 to add disability and remove language that could be read as permitting pretextual stops.¹⁶ The ACLU criticized even the 2023 guidance for continuing to treat national security and intelligence operations as areas where discriminatory profiling could still occur.¹⁷

President Biden also issued Executive Order 14074 on May 25, 2022, requiring annual implicit bias training for federal officers, directing the development of vetting to prevent hiring officers who promote white supremacy or bias, and tasking the Attorney General with assessing existing profiling guidance.¹⁸ President Trump revoked that order on January 22, 2025, dismantling the Biden-era framework for federal policing reforms, including body camera mandates, chokehold restrictions, and federal use-of-force standards.¹⁹

The federal picture, meanwhile, is essentially where it was when the bill was first filed more than two decades ago: no statute, guidance that changes with each administration, and a bill that keeps coming back.

1
Congress.gov. H.R.5727 – ERRPA
2
GovInfo. S.1084 – End Racial and Religious Profiling Act of 2023
3
Congress.gov. S.1084 – End Racial and Religious Profiling Act of 2023
4
ACLU. End Racial Profiling Act: Giving Us a Way to Fight Back
5
Office of Senator Chris Van Hollen. Van Hollen Joins Cardin to Introduce Bill to Ban Religious, Racial and Discriminatory Profiling by Law Enforcement
6
Office of Senator Cory Booker. George Floyd Justice in Policing Act
7
GovInfo. Hearing on S. 989, End Racial Profiling Act of 2001
8
ACLU. ACLU Applauds Introduction of End Racial Profiling Act
9
Congress.gov. S.1038 – End Racial Profiling Act of 2013
10
Office of Congressman Steve Cohen. Cohen: Congress Must Act to End Racial Profiling
11
ACLU. End Racial Profiling Act Lobby Day: Bringing Real Stories to Capitol Hill
12
The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights. Support the End Racial and Religious Profiling Act of 2021
13
Fraternal Order of Police. FOP Testimony on S. 989, End Racial Profiling Act of 2001
14
Every CRS Report. Racial Profiling: Issues and Federal Legislative Proposals
15
U.S. Department of Justice. Justice Department Issues Policy Guidance to Ban Racial Profiling
16
U.S. Department of Justice. Guidance for Federal Law Enforcement Agencies Regarding the Use of Protected Characteristics
17
ACLU. Joint Letter Critiquing 2023 Justice Department Racial Profiling Guidance
18
The American Presidency Project. Executive Order 14074
19
Brennan Center for Justice. Traffic Stop Data
21
CT Data Haven. Connecticut Data Reveal Racial Disparities in Policing
22
California Department of Justice. RIPA Board Reports