SB 2122, the Jury ACCESS Act of 2025, would amend federal jury-selection law to bar the exclusion of individuals from service on a federal jury because of their sexual orientation or gender identity. The bill makes a narrow change to title 28 of the U.S. Code by adding those protected characteristics to the list of traits that cannot be used to disqualify or exclude prospective jurors.
In practical terms, the measure would extend existing federal protections in jury service to LGBTQ+ individuals, ensuring they are treated the same as other protected groups in the jury-selection process. It applies only to federal juries and does not directly change state jury-selection laws, though it could influence broader policy discussions about nondiscrimination in civic service.
Impact
The bill would amend 28 U.S.C. ยง 1862, which governs prohibited exclusions from federal jury service, by adding sexual orientation and gender identity to the statutory list of protected characteristics. This would create an explicit federal prohibition on excluding prospective jurors on those bases and would affect federal courts, litigants, and jury administrators involved in jury selection. It would not alter state statutes directly, but it would expand federal civil rights protections in the administration of federal juries.
Sentiment
The available context suggests generally supportive sentiment, as the bill was introduced by a bipartisan group of senators and referred to the Judiciary Committee without recorded opposition or votes. The sponsorship indicates an emphasis on equal treatment and nondiscrimination in civic participation, and there are no committee transcripts or vote records showing organized resistance in the provided materials.
Contention
The main point of contention, based on the subject matter rather than recorded debate, is whether federal jury-selection law should expressly enumerate sexual orientation and gender identity as protected categories. Supporters are likely to frame the bill as a straightforward equality measure that closes a gap in federal nondiscrimination law, while potential critics could argue about the scope of federal civil-rights protections or the need for additional statutory categories. No specific objections or amendments are documented in the provided record.