Brandon Gill (R-TX)
Restoring Equal Opportunity Act
A Republican bill with 61 Republican cosponsors · See all 61 cosponsors
Last activity — Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on Education and Workforce, 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.
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
The Restoring Equal Opportunity Act aims to amend the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Fair Housing Act. Its primary purpose is to prohibit disparate-impact claims. This would prevent actions or proceedings based on practices that are neutral on their face but have a disproportionate effect on certain groups. The bill specifically targets employment practices and housing practices. Additionally, it seeks to nullify certain Presidential approvals of specific regulations.
Yes
- Scored +5
Would business owners be better off under this?
The bill provides significant legal relief for businesses by eliminating the threat of disparate-impact lawsuits.
- Scored +3
Would white Americans be better off under this?
The reduction in legal liability may disproportionately benefit employers and landlords often within the majority demographic.
- Scored +2
Would high-income households be better off under this?
Reducing legal liabilities for disparate impact may benefit those in higher-income brackets by decreasing litigation risks.
The opposite· 3 of 17
- Scored -7
Would Black Americans be better off under this?
The removal of disparate-impact liability diminishes legal recourse for racial discrimination in housing and employment.
- Scored -7
Would Hispanic Americans be better off under this?
The bill limits the ability to challenge systemic racial and ethnic discrimination in employment and housing.
- Scored -7
Would Asian Americans be better off under this?
Eliminating disparate-impact claims reduces protections against discriminatory practices affecting minority groups.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
- Adherence to Constitutional and Civil Rights Policy: According to Section 2, the bill aims to eliminate disparate-simpact liability to avoid violating the Constitution of the United States, Federal civil rights laws, and basic American ideals.
Potential Negative Impacts for People
-
Prohibition of Employment Claims: Under Section 3, a person may no longer bring an action or proceeding for a claim alleging an unlawful employment practice based on disparate impact, which is defined as a practice that is neutral on its face but may have a disproportionate effect on certain groups.
-
Prohibition of Housing Claims: Under Section 4, a person may no longer bring an action or proceeding for a claim alleging a discriminatory housing practice based on disparate impact, which is defined as a practice that is neutral on its face but may have a disproportionate effect on certain groups.
-
Nullification of Existing Regulations: Section 5 removes the force and effect of certain Presidential approvals of regulations issued by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the Department of Justice.
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 business owners be better off under this? — The bill provides significant legal relief for businesses by eliminating the threat of disparate-impact lawsuits. Would white Americans be better off under this? — The reduction in legal liability may disproportionately benefit employers and landlords often within the majority demographic. Would high-income households be better off under this? — Reducing legal liabilities for disparate impact may benefit those in higher-income brackets by decreasing litigation risks. Would Black Americans be better off under this? — The removal of disparate-impact liability diminishes legal recourse for racial discrimination in housing and employment. Would Asian Americans be better off under this? — Eliminating disparate-impact claims reduces protections against discriminatory practices affecting minority groups. Would Hispanic Americans be better off under this? — The bill limits the ability to challenge systemic racial and ethnic discrimination in employment and housing. Would Native Americans be better off under this? — The bill reduces the legal tools available to combat systemic discrimination against Native Americans. Would immigrants be better off under this? — The bill reduces legal protections that could address systemic discriminatory practices against immigrant populations. Would households on low incomes be better off under this? — Reducing disparate-impact claims removes protections that are often vital for low-income households facing systemic barriers. Would LGBTQ people be better off under this? — The elimination of disparate-impact claims reduces the ability to challenge systemic discrimination. Would people with disabilities be better off under this? — The loss of disparate-impact claims limits the ability to challenge policies that disproportionately disadvantage people with disabilities. Would women be better off under this? — Removing disparate-impact protections may impact women facing systemic gender-based disparities in the workforce. Would union members be better off under this? — Reducing civil rights protections in employment may indirectly impact the protections sought by unionized workers. Would people in cities be better off under this? — The removal of disparate-impact protections for housing may negatively affect urban residents facing systemic issues.
- Social Issues And Justice
- Does this narrow racial gaps in how people are treated? — Prohibiting disparate-impact claims significantly weakens the ability to challenge systemic racial inequities in housing and employment. Does this make housing cost less? — Prohibiting disparate-impact claims removes a critical tool for addressing discriminatory housing practices. Does this expand the rights of people with disabilities? — Removing disparate-impact claims limits the ability to challenge practices that disproportionately affect people with disabilities. Does this narrow the gap between how men and women are treated? — The elimination of disparate-impact liability reduces legal recourse for gender-based systemic discrimination. Does this expand the rights of LGBTQ people? — The removal of disparate-impact claims may reduce protections for marginalized groups including the LGBTQ community.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this give the federal government more power? — The bill reduces federal regulatory power by nullifying certain existing regulations.
- 8/27/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 7/21/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 6/30/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 5/14/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 5/7/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 4/21/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 4/16/2026
- 2 Cosponsors added.
- 4/9/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 4/6/2026
- 3 Cosponsors added.
- 3/27/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 3/18/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 3/2/2026
- 2 Cosponsors added.
- 2/24/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 2/23/2026
- 2 Cosponsors added.
- 2/17/2026
- 3 Cosponsors added.
- 2/9/2026
- 6 Cosponsors added.
- 2/5/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 2/4/2026
- 8 Cosponsors added.
- 2/3/2026
- 8 Cosponsors added.
- 2/2/2026
- 7 Cosponsors added.
- 1/30/2026
- 7 Cosponsors added.
- 1/22/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 7/16/2025
- Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on Education and Workforce, 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.
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- Introduced in House
One bill Congress.gov lists as related to this one — companions in the other chamber, earlier versions, and bills this one absorbed or was folded into.
Mark AlfordRepublican · Missouri
Lauren BoebertRepublican · Colorado
Andy BarrRepublican · Kentucky
Andy BiggsRepublican · Arizona
Aaron BeanRepublican · Florida
Josh BrecheenRepublican · Oklahoma
Sheri BiggsRepublican · South Carolina
Kat CammackRepublican · Florida
James ComerRepublican · Kentucky
Michael CloudRepublican · Texas
Andrew ClydeRepublican · Georgia
Ben ClineRepublican · Virginia
Mike CollinsRepublican · Georgia
Jeff CrankRepublican · Colorado
Byron DonaldsRepublican · Florida
Scott DesJarlaisRepublican · Tennessee
Ron EstesRepublican · Kansas
Russ FulcherRepublican · Idaho
Scott FranklinRepublican · Florida
Russell FryRepublican · South Carolina
Randy FineRepublican · Florida
Paul GosarRepublican · Arizona
H. GriffithRepublican · Virginia
Glenn GrothmanRepublican · Wisconsin
Michael GuestRepublican · Mississippi
Clay HigginsRepublican · Louisiana
Diana HarshbargerRepublican · Tennessee
Wesley HuntRepublican · Texas
Mark HarrisRepublican · North Carolina
Ronny JacksonRepublican · Texas
Brian JackRepublican · Georgia
David KustoffRepublican · Tennessee
Mike KennedyRepublican · Utah
Robert LattaRepublican · Ohio
Laurel LeeRepublican · Florida
Nancy MaceRepublican · South Carolina
Gregory MurphyRepublican · North Carolina
Mary MillerRepublican · Illinois
Barry MooreRepublican · Alabama
Blake MooreRepublican · Utah
Richard McCormickRepublican · Georgia
Riley MooreRepublican · West Virginia
Tim MooreRepublican · North Carolina
John McGuireRepublican · Virginia
Addison McDowellRepublican · North Carolina
Ralph NormanRepublican · South Carolina
Andrew OglesRepublican · Tennessee
Robert OnderRepublican · Missouri
August PflugerRepublican · Texas
Scott PerryRepublican · Pennsylvania
Jimmy PatronisRepublican · Florida
John RoseRepublican · Tennessee
Chip RoyRepublican · Texas
Michael RulliRepublican · Ohio
Marlin StutzmanRepublican · Indiana
Jason SmithRepublican · Missouri
Keith SelfRepublican · Texas
Jefferson ShreveRepublican · Indiana
Claudia TenneyRepublican · New York
David TaylorRepublican · Ohio
Matt Van EppsRepublican · Tennessee