A Democratic bill with no cosponsors
Last activity — Referred to the Subcommittee on Border Security and Enforcement.
In committee
Introduced and handed to a committee in the chamber it started in.
The committee holds it, and most bills are never heard from again. A hearing or a committee vote would be news; silence is the usual outcome, and it kills the bill without anyone voting against it.
Its path through Congress
- Introduced
- In Committee
What this bill would do
This bill, titled the "No PREJUDICE Act," aims to prevent the Department of Homeland Security from using federal funds for discriminatory profiling. It prohibits officers and employees from seizing, detaining, or arresting individuals based on specific characteristics or circumstances. These prohibited bases include race, religion, gender identity, and the use of certain languages or accents. Additionally, it restricts actions based on an individual's presence at specific job-related locations or participation in certain activities. The bill also establishes a process for aliens in removal proceedings to request a hearing in district court to challenge potential violations.
Yes· 3 of 18
- Scored +9
Would immigrants be better off under this?
The bill provides strong protections against profiling and a legal path to challenge removal proceedings.
- Scored +8
Would Hispanic Americans be better off under this?
The bill protects against profiling based on national origin and language/accent.
- Scored +8
Would LGBTQ people be better off under this?
The bill specifically prohibits profiling based on gender identity and sexual orientation.
The opposite
- Scored -5
Does this give the government more power to monitor people inside the country?
The bill restricts the types of surveillance-based profiling DHS can conduct.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
Protection Against Profiling: The bill prohibits DHS officers from seizing, detaining, or arresting people based on actual or perceived race, color, religion, sex, national origin, gender, gender identity, or sexual orientation (Section 2(a)(1)).
-
Protection for Workers: It prevents targeting individuals based on their presence at locations associated with informal or temporary employment, such as bus stops, car washes, or agricultural sites (Section 2(a)(2)).
-
Protection for Hobbies and Careers: The bill prohibits profiling based on a person's participation in a particular hobby, leisure activity, job, or career (Section 2(a)(3)).
-
Language Protections: It prevents individuals from being targeted due to the use of Spanish, any language other than English, or the use of English with an accent (Section 2(a)(4)).
-
Legal Recourse for Immigration Proceedings: Aliens in removal proceedings can request a hearing in a district court to determine if the profiling prohibition was violated (Section 2(b)(1)).
-
Dismissal of Removal Proceedings: If a district judge finds that a violation of the prohibition occurred, the judge shall dismiss the removal proceedings against the alien (Section 2(b)(2)).
Potential Negative Impacts for People
- No specific negative impacts are mentioned in the text.
Groups and Interests Ranking
Every group the model scored this bill for, from -10 to +10. Tap or hover a score for the reason it gave.
- Demographic And Interest Groups
- Would immigrants be better off under this? — The bill provides strong protections against profiling and a legal path to challenge removal proceedings. Would Hispanic Americans be better off under this? — The bill protects against profiling based on national origin and language/accent. Would LGBTQ people be better off under this? — The bill specifically prohibits profiling based on gender identity and sexual orientation. Would Black Americans be better off under this? — The bill restricts profiling based on race and ethnicity. Would Asian Americans be better off under this? — The bill prohibits profiling based on race and national origin. Would Native Americans be better off under this? — The bill prohibits profiling based on race and ethnicity. Would women be better off under this? — The bill prohibits profiling based on sex and gender identity. Would households on low incomes be better off under this? — The bill protects workers in informal or temporary employment from profiling. Would farmers be better off under this? — The bill protects agricultural workers from being profiled at job sites.
- Social Issues And Justice
- Does this narrow racial gaps in how people are treated? — The bill prohibits profiling based on race, color, and ethnicity. Does this narrow the gap between how men and women are treated? — The bill prohibits profiling based on sex and gender identity. Does this expand the rights of LGBTQ people? — The bill prohibits profiling based on gender identity and sexual orientation. Does this change how police departments operate? — The bill restricts DHS officers from using discriminatory profiling during enforcement activities. Does this protect the freedom to practise a religion? — The bill prohibits profiling based on religion. Does this make it easier for immigrants already here to become citizens? — The bill provides legal recourse and potential dismissal of removal proceedings for victims of profiling.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this protect the right to fair treatment by the courts? — The bill grants aliens the right to a district court hearing to challenge discriminatory profiling. Does this make what the government does easier for the public to see? — The bill provides a mechanism for judicial review of DHS actions. Does this protect people from being watched or searched? — The bill protects individuals from profiling based on their presence at certain locations or use of specific languages.
- National Security And Foreign Policy
- Does this give the government more power to monitor people inside the country? — The bill restricts the types of surveillance-based profiling DHS can conduct.
- 7/31/2026
- Referred to the Subcommittee on Border Security and Enforcement.
- 7/30/2026
- Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on Homeland Security, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
- Introduced in House