Federal Ban on Racial and Religious Profiling: New Law Ties Grant Money to Police Data Collection and Accountability

The End Racial and Religious Profiling Act of 2025 (ERRPA) is designed to do exactly what its name suggests: put a hard stop to police profiling based on race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, gender, gender identity, or sexual orientation. Think of this as the federal government saying, “No more, and we’re backing it up with money and lawsuits.”

This bill doesn’t just ask nicely; it mandates change. It requires all federal law enforcement agencies to immediately implement anti-profiling policies, training, and complaint procedures (Sec. 201). For state, local, and tribal police departments, the bill uses the carrot-and-stick approach: if you want federal money from key programs like the Byrne Justice Assistance Grant or the Cops on the Beat program, you must certify that you have comprehensive anti-profiling policies in place and are collecting data (Sec. 301). If the Attorney General (AG) finds you’re not complying, they can pull the plug on that funding until you fix the problem (Sec. 302).

The Data Mandate: Tracking Stops and Searches

For the average person, the most significant change will be the massive push for transparency. ERRPA requires law enforcement agencies—federal and local—to collect detailed data on every routine stop, search, and investigation they conduct (Sec. 401). This isn't just about traffic stops; it includes pedestrian stops, frisks, and even immigration inspections. Officers must record the date, time, location, and the perceived race, ethnicity, national origin, gender, and religion of the person involved.

Crucially, this data cannot include any personally identifiable information, protecting your privacy (Sec. 401). The goal is to let the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) analyze the data to spot statistically significant disparities—like finding out if drivers of a certain race are stopped more often than their presence in the area would suggest, or if searches targeting one group have a much lower “hit rate” (the success rate of finding contraband) than searches targeting others. This is the mechanism designed to catch “false stops” and prove profiling is happening.

Your Day in Court: The Private Right to Sue

This bill gives real power to individuals who feel they've been profiled. If you are harmed by racial profiling, you—or even the U.S. government—can file a lawsuit in state or federal court (Sec. 102). You can sue not only the individual officer but also the governmental body and the supervisors who employed them. If you win, the court can make the agency pay your attorney fees and expert witness costs, which is a huge deal for making these lawsuits financially viable for regular folks.

What’s interesting is how you prove your case. If you can show that the police in your area stop or investigate people with a specific characteristic (like race or religion) much harder than others, that’s considered strong initial evidence that profiling has occurred (Sec. 102). This shifts the burden and makes it easier for victims to challenge systemic issues, not just individual bad actors.

The Fine Print: Where the Loophole Might Be

While the intent is clear, there are a few areas that policy watchdogs will need to monitor closely. The AG is given broad power to define what is considered an acceptable administrative complaint process and independent audit program (Sec. 302). How strict those rules are will determine if compliance is real or just box-checking.

Also, the definition of "racial profiling" includes a significant carve-out: it’s allowed if there is "solid, local information linking a person with that specific characteristic to a known crime or ongoing criminal plan" (Sec. 2). While this is intended to allow officers to pursue specific, credible leads, the subjective nature of what constitutes “solid, local information” could be used to justify stops that are essentially profiling under a different name. This is a detail that could easily be exploited and will likely be tested in court.