Mike Lee (R-UT)
Restoring Equal Opportunity Act
A Republican bill with 4 Republican cosponsors · See all 4 cosponsors
Last activity — Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
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. The primary goal is to prohibit disparate-impact claims in both employment and housing practices. This bill seeks to eliminate the use of disparate-impact liability to avoid violating the Constitution and federal civil rights laws. It specifically targets employment practices and housing practices that are neutral on their face but have a disproportionate effect on certain groups. Finally, the act nullifies specific Presidential approvals of certain regulations.
Yes
- Scored +4
Would business owners be better off under this?
Employers may benefit from reduced legal exposure to disparate-impact lawsuits.
The opposite· 3 of 14
- Scored -7
Would Black Americans be better off under this?
Eliminating disparate-impact liability removes a legal mechanism used to fight racial inequity in housing and jobs.
- Scored -7
Would Hispanic Americans be better off under this?
The bill reduces legal recourse against systemic practices that may disproportionately affect Hispanic communities.
- Scored -7
Would Asian Americans be better off under this?
The loss of disparate-impact protections may negatively impact the ability to challenge discriminatory practices.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
Elimination of Disparate-Impact Liability: According to Section 2, the Senate believes eliminating this liability will avoid violating the Constitution of the United States, Federal civil rights laws, and basic American ideals.
-
Prohibition of Employment Claims: Section 3 states that no person may bring an action or proceeding for an unlawful employment practice based on disparate impact, which refers to practices that are neutral on their face but have a disproportionate effect on certain groups.
-
Prohibition of Housing Claims: Section 4 prevents persons from bringing actions or proceedings for discriminatory housing practices based on disparate impact, which are practices that are neutral on their face but have a disproportionate effect on certain groups.
Potential Negative Impacts for People
-
Loss of Legal Recourse for Employment: Under Section 3, individuals would no longer be able to bring an action or proceeding for an employment practice that is neutral on its face but has a disproportionate effect on certain groups, including protected classes.
-
Loss of Legal Recourse for Housing: Under Section 4, individuals would no longer be able to bring an action or proceeding for a housing practice that is neutral on its face but has a disproportionate effect on certain groups, including protected classes.
-
Nullification of Regulations: Section 5 removes the force and effect of specific Presidential approvals of regulations issued by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the Department of Justice regarding the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
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? — Employers may benefit from reduced legal exposure to disparate-impact lawsuits. Would Black Americans be better off under this? — Eliminating disparate-impact liability removes a legal mechanism used to fight racial inequity in housing and jobs. Would Asian Americans be better off under this? — The loss of disparate-impact protections may negatively impact the ability to challenge discriminatory practices. Would Hispanic Americans be better off under this? — The bill reduces legal recourse against systemic practices that may disproportionately affect Hispanic communities. Would Native Americans be better off under this? — Prohibiting disparate-impact claims reduces the ability to challenge discriminatory practices affecting Native American populations. Would households on low incomes be better off under this? — The loss of disparate-impact claims may disproportionately affect low-income households facing systemic barriers to employment and housing. Would LGBTQ people be better off under this? — The bill reduces the legal tools available to challenge discriminatory practices based on disproportionate effects. Would people with disabilities be better off under this? — Eliminating disparate-impact claims may reduce legal protections for individuals with disabilities facing systemic barriers. Would women be better off under this? — Removing disparate-impact claims may hinder efforts to address gender-based systemic discrimination.
- Social Issues And Justice
- Does this narrow racial gaps in how people are treated? — Eliminating disparate-impact liability removes a key legal tool used to challenge systemic racial discrimination in housing and employment. Does this make housing cost less? — Prohibiting disparate-impact claims in housing may reduce the ability to combat systemic barriers to affordable housing access. Does this expand the rights of people with disabilities? — Removing disparate-impact claims may limit the ability of people with disabilities to challenge discriminatory practices that are neutral on their face. Does this narrow the gap between how men and women are treated? — The loss of disparate-impact recourse may negatively impact gender equity in the workplace and housing market. Does this expand the rights of LGBTQ people? — The prohibition of disparate-impact claims may reduce protections for minority groups and LGBTQ+ individuals in employment and housing.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this give the federal government more power? — By nullifying certain regulations and limiting legal recourse, this bill seeks to reduce the reach of federal civil rights enforcement.
- 6/23/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 6/10/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 3/24/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 2/3/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 7/17/2025
- Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
- Introduced in Senate
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.
Jim BanksRepublican · Indiana
Ted BuddRepublican · North Carolina
Bernie MorenoRepublican · Ohio
Eric SchmittRepublican · Missouri