HB1354, titled the Justice for All Act of 2025, is a broad civil rights bill that would expand and clarify federal anti-discrimination protections across multiple areas of law. Its central purpose is to restore and codify private rights of action for claims based on disparate impact under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title IX, the Age Discrimination Act of 1975, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, and the Fair Housing Act. The bill also adds or clarifies statutory definitions for sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, natural hair, source of income, and related terms, and it expressly states that discrimination based on sex includes pregnancy, childbirth, sex stereotypes, sexual orientation, gender identity, and intersex traits.
The bill would also significantly expand remedies and enforcement tools. It authorizes equitable relief, compensatory and punitive damages, attorney’s fees, expert fees, and costs in a wide range of civil rights actions, including claims based on intentional discrimination and disparate impact. It further requires attorney’s fees to be included in settlements or consent decrees in covered cases, and it strengthens enforcement against employment harassment by imposing strict vicarious employer liability and eliminating the Faragher-Ellerth affirmative defense. In addition, the bill would bar predispute arbitration agreements and class-action waivers for employment, consumer, and civil rights disputes, and would limit the use of arbitration to voluntary agreements made after a dispute arises.
Beyond the core civil rights statutes, HB1354 would create a new federal prohibition on discriminatory profiling by law enforcement. It defines profiling broadly to include reliance on race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity, or sexual orientation in routine investigatory activities such as stops, searches, interviews, and immigration-related enforcement. Proof that such activities have had a disparate impact could serve as prima facie evidence of a violation, and the United States or an injured individual could sue for equitable or legal relief. The bill also expands the scope of public accommodations under Title II of the Civil Rights Act to cover a wider range of businesses and services, including online retailers and service providers, health care, transportation, and other establishments.
If enacted, the bill would substantially alter federal civil rights enforcement by making disparate-impact claims more directly actionable and by increasing available remedies against covered entities, including governments in some circumstances. It would affect schools, employers, housing providers, public accommodations, federally funded programs, law enforcement agencies, and private entities performing public functions. The bill also includes provisions aimed at limiting the use of sovereign immunity, qualified immunity, and arbitration as barriers to civil rights enforcement, while preserving voluntary post-dispute arbitration and including a severability clause.
The available legislative context shows no recorded votes or committee debate, so there is no documented floor or committee sentiment to measure. Based on the bill text and sponsorship, the measure appears strongly supported by its Democratic sponsors and framed as a civil rights expansion and response to court decisions such as Sandoval, but it is also likely to be controversial because it would broaden liability, revive disparate-impact litigation, restrict arbitration, and eliminate several defenses commonly relied on by employers, housing providers, and government defendants.
HB1354 would amend several major federal civil rights statutes, including Title VI, Title IX, the Age Discrimination Act, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, the Fair Housing Act, Title II public accommodations provisions, Title VII employment law, and Section 1983. It would also add a new federal anti-profiling cause of action and create a new chapter in the Federal Arbitration Act limiting predispute arbitration and class-action waivers in employment, consumer, and civil rights disputes. The bill would expand the scope of protected traits and covered conduct, increase available damages and attorney-fee recovery, and make disparate-impact claims expressly actionable in several contexts.
There is no committee transcript or vote history in the provided record, so no formal legislative sentiment can be measured from debate or roll call. The bill’s sponsors and findings reflect a clearly supportive posture toward stronger civil rights enforcement, private litigation, and broader protections for race, sex, age, disability, LGBTQ status, and housing access. At the same time, the breadth of the bill suggests it would likely draw opposition from entities affected by expanded liability and reduced procedural defenses.
The main points of contention are likely to be the bill’s restoration of disparate-impact liability, its expansion of damages and fee-shifting, and its removal of defenses such as the Faragher-Ellerth affirmative defense, qualified immunity, and predispute arbitration. Employers, schools, housing providers, law enforcement agencies, and government defendants may object to the increased litigation exposure and compliance burdens, while civil rights advocates are likely to support the bill’s broader enforcement mechanisms and explicit protections for LGBTQ people, natural hair, and source-of-income housing discrimination. The law-enforcement profiling provisions and the arbitration restrictions are also likely to be especially disputed.