ERRPA
- Sponsor
- Rep. Cohen, Steve [D-TN-9]
- Committees
- Judiciary Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Oct 10, 2025
Bottom line
This bill aims to comprehensively ban and enforce the prohibition of discriminatory profiling by law enforcement across all governmental levels through policy mandates, robust data collection, and financial incentives.
What it actually does
This bill prohibits racial, religious, and other discriminatory profiling by federal, state, local, and tribal law enforcement agencies. It mandates the implementation of anti-profiling policies, comprehensive data collection on investigatory activities, and establishes enforcement mechanisms including civil actions and conditions for federal grants. The bill also authorizes grants for data collection demonstration projects and the development of best practices to eliminate profiling.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue this bill is a crucial step to address systemic discrimination in law enforcement, enhance public trust, and ensure equitable treatment under the law by providing clear prohibitions, robust data collection, and accountability mechanisms. They contend that ending profiling will improve community relations and make policing more effective.
Opponents contend
Opponents might argue that the bill's broad definition of racial profiling could hinder legitimate law enforcement activities, impose undue administrative burdens on agencies, and potentially compromise public safety by limiting officers' discretion in critical situations. They may also raise concerns about federal overreach into local policing matters.
The bill is relatively short and clearly structured, making it accessible for an informed reader to understand its core provisions within a reasonable timeframe.
Title I, Sec. 101-102
Prohibition and Enforcement of Racial Profiling
This section explicitly prohibits any law enforcement agent or agency from engaging in racial profiling. It allows the United States or an injured individual to file a civil action for declaratory or injunctive relief in state or federal court. Proof of disparate impact in routine investigatory activities serves as prima facie evidence of a violation, and prevailing plaintiffs can recover attorney's fees.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that establishing a clear prohibition and a private right of action is essential for deterring discriminatory practices and providing meaningful recourse for victims of profiling, thereby enhancing justice and accountability.
Critics contend
Opponents may argue that allowing civil actions based on disparate impact could lead to an increase in lawsuits against law enforcement, potentially chilling legitimate police work and diverting resources from public safety efforts.
Tradeoffs
This provision balances the need for robust civil rights enforcement with concerns about potential impacts on law enforcement operations and resources. The disparate impact standard aims to address systemic issues but may be seen by some as too broad.
Title II, Sec. 201
Policies for Federal Law Enforcement Agencies
Federal law enforcement agencies are required to maintain adequate policies and procedures to eliminate racial profiling and cease existing practices that permit it. These policies must include a prohibition on profiling, mandatory training, data collection according to Attorney General regulations, and procedures for investigating complaints.
Title III, Sec. 301-302
Grant Conditions for State, Local, and Tribal Agencies
State, local, and tribal law enforcement agencies applying for federal grants under the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program or the 'Cops on the Beat' program must certify that they maintain anti-profiling policies, including training, data collection, and participation in administrative complaint procedures or independent audit programs. The Attorney General can withhold funds for non-compliance and will issue regulations for these complaint/audit programs.
Title IV, Sec. 401
Mandatory Data Collection and Analysis
The Attorney General must issue regulations for the collection and compilation of data on all routine investigatory activities by law enforcement. This data must include the date, time, location, and perceived race, ethnicity, national origin, gender, and religion of individuals involved. It must be detailed enough to analyze racial profiling, exclude personally identifiable information, and be maintained for at least four years. The Bureau of Justice Statistics will analyze this data for statistically significant disparities, including 'hit rates,' and report findings annually to Congress and the public.
Title V, Sec. 501
Attorney General Reports on Racial Profiling
The Attorney General is required to submit annual reports to Congress on racial profiling by law enforcement agencies, starting two years after enactment. These reports must summarize collected data, discuss findings from the Bureau of Justice Statistics' analysis, detail the status of policy adoption and implementation by federal, state, and local agencies, and recommend further policies to eliminate profiling.
The definition of 'racial profiling' is expanded beyond race and religion to include ethnicity, national origin, gender, gender identity, or sexual orientation.
Sec. 2(7)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice to define terms upfront, though its broad scope is highly consequential.
Case for: Proponents argue that including these additional characteristics reflects a comprehensive understanding of discriminatory profiling and ensures protection for all vulnerable groups, aligning the bill with modern civil rights principles.
Case against: Critics might argue that broadening the definition to this extent could make it excessively difficult for law enforcement to operate, potentially leading to accusations of profiling in a wider range of legitimate interactions.
Estimated impact: Significantly expands the scope of prohibited profiling, offering protection to a much wider array of individuals and increasing the compliance burden on law enforcement agencies.
Proof that routine or spontaneous investigatory activities have had a disparate impact on individuals with a particular characteristic (race, religion, gender, etc.) shall constitute prima facie evidence of a violation of the Act.
Sec. 102(c)
Why it matters:This is a standard legal drafting technique for establishing evidentiary standards in civil rights legislation.
Case for: Proponents argue that the disparate impact standard is essential for addressing systemic discrimination, as direct proof of discriminatory intent is often difficult to obtain. It allows for accountability where practices, even if facially neutral, result in discriminatory outcomes.
Case against: Opponents may argue that a disparate impact standard places an unfair burden on law enforcement agencies, potentially leading to liability even in the absence of intentional discrimination, and could force agencies to adopt quotas or avoid policing in certain areas to prevent statistical disparities.
Estimated impact: Significantly lowers the bar for plaintiffs to establish a violation, shifting the burden to law enforcement agencies to justify practices that show disparate impact.
The Attorney General's data collection regulations must include guidelines for setting comparative benchmarks against which collected data shall be measured, and the Director of the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) must analyze data for 'statistically significant disparities,' including 'hit rates' and search frequencies.
Sec. 401(b)(6) and (7)
Why it matters:This is typical for specifying the technical details of data analysis and reporting within a regulatory framework.
Case for: Proponents argue that establishing clear benchmarks and requiring analysis of 'hit rates' provides an objective, evidence-based method to identify and address profiling, moving beyond mere raw numbers to assess the effectiveness and fairness of stops and searches.
Case against: Critics may argue that 'hit rate' analysis can be misleading or difficult to interpret without full context, and that setting comparative benchmarks could be arbitrary or lead to perverse incentives for officers.
Estimated impact: Provides a robust analytical framework for identifying profiling, making it harder for agencies to dismiss statistical disparities as coincidental, and informs public and congressional oversight.