Restoring Equal Opportunity Act
- Sponsor
- Rep. Gill, Brandon [R-TX-26]
- Committees
- Judiciary Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Jul 16, 2025
Bottom line
The bill seeks to eliminate disparate impact as a basis for discrimination claims in federal civil rights law, requiring proof of intentional discrimination for such claims.
What it actually does
This bill amends the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Fair Housing Act to explicitly prohibit legal claims based on 'disparate impact' in employment and housing practices. It defines disparate impact as a facially neutral practice that disproportionately affects certain groups without an intention to discriminate. Additionally, it nullifies specific federal regulations from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the Department of Justice that previously allowed for disparate impact claims under Title VI and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue that the bill restores the original intent of civil rights laws by focusing solely on intentional discrimination, thereby preventing 'reverse discrimination' and promoting merit-based decisions. They contend that disparate impact claims lead to quotas or discourage practices that are facially neutral but may have statistical disparities, imposing undue burdens on employers and housing providers.
Opponents contend
Opponents contend that this bill would significantly weaken civil rights protections, making it substantially harder to challenge systemic discrimination where intent is often difficult to prove. They argue that disparate impact is a crucial legal tool for addressing subtle or unconscious biases and historical inequalities that manifest in unequal outcomes for protected classes, even without overt discriminatory intent.
The bill is very short and clearly written, making it highly accessible for a reader to evaluate its core provisions quickly.
Section 3
Prohibition of Disparate-Impact Claims for Employment Practices
This section amends Section 703 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to explicitly state that no person may bring a lawsuit or proceeding for an unlawful employment practice based on disparate impact. It defines 'disparate impact' as the result of an employment practice that appears neutral on its face and is not intended to discriminate, but may nonetheless have a disproportionate effect on certain groups, including those protected under the Civil Rights Act. This change means that to prove discrimination in employment, one would need to demonstrate intentional discrimination, not just a disproportionate outcome.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue this provision reduces the regulatory burden on employers, allows them to implement facially neutral policies without fear of lawsuits based on statistical outcomes, and ensures that anti-discrimination law focuses on actual intent rather than potentially misleading statistical disparities.
Critics contend
Critics contend that this provision would severely weaken protections against systemic discrimination in the workplace, making it nearly impossible to challenge practices that, while not overtly malicious, perpetuate inequalities and disadvantage protected groups by requiring proof of often hidden intent.
Tradeoffs
The provision balances the desire to reduce employer liability and focus on intentional discrimination against the concern that it may allow subtle or unconscious biases to persist and create unequal employment opportunities for protected classes.
Section 4
Prohibition of Disparate-Impact Claims for Housing Practices
This section amends Section 807 of the Fair Housing Act to prohibit claims alleging a discriminatory housing practice based on disparate impact. Similar to the employment provision, it defines 'disparate impact' in housing as a practice that is neutral on its face and not intended to discriminate, but which may have a disproportionate effect on certain protected groups. This means that challenging housing policies, such as zoning laws, lending criteria, or rental policies, would require proving intentional discrimination rather than just demonstrating a discriminatory outcome.
Section 5
Nullifying Disparate-Impact Regulations
This section declares that specific Presidential approvals of regulations issued by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and the Department of Justice (DOJ) shall have no force and effect. These regulations, specifically cited by their Federal Register publications and Code of Federal Regulations sections, are those that have historically allowed for disparate impact claims under Title VII (employment) and Title VI (federal assistance) of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. By nullifying these regulations, the bill aims to eliminate the administrative and regulatory basis for disparate impact claims across various federal contexts, aligning with its statutory changes.
This section nullifies specific Presidential approvals of regulations issued by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and the Department of Justice (DOJ) relating to disparate impact claims under Title VII and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It specifically targets language within 28 CFR 42.104(b)(2), 42.104(b)(3) (words 'or effect'), and 42.104(b)(6)(ii), and 42.104(c)(2).
Section 5
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice for targeting specific regulatory language. The precision is necessary for legal clarity, but it inherently makes the provision less accessible to a general audience.
Case for: Supporters argue that this comprehensive approach ensures that the bill's intent to eliminate disparate impact liability is applied across both statutory and regulatory frameworks, preventing agencies from continuing to enforce such claims under existing rules.
Case against: Critics argue that this provision represents a significant rollback of established administrative law and enforcement tools, dismantling a regulatory structure that has been in place for decades to address systemic discrimination.
Estimated impact: Significant, as it removes the administrative basis for disparate impact claims in areas covered by these regulations, complementing the statutory changes in employment and housing.