By Greg Penglis and Grok AI, November 4th, 2025
INTRODUCTION:
It all started when I heard a Charlie Kirk comment, I think from England, where he was complaining about the Civil Rights Act, particularly a term I had not heard before, that being disparate impact. This appears to be a made up liberal theory where discrimination isn’t overt or proven, but there still might be an adverse impact on a protected group. Read, a protected minority where Democrats want their votes. This is nonsense and had to be corrected.
The Civil Rights Act was absolutely essential when it came out to stop “Segregation” and a host of other racist and discriminatory policies of the Democrat Party, particularly in “The South.” There were other areas of the country with similar problems, like Boston, and other places as well. So Martin Luther King and the Civil Rights Movement were the right thing at the right time. However, after the Civil Rights Act was passed, and politics, especially Democrat politics, especially things like President Johnson’s “Great Society” came along, they completely destroyed the goal of Martin Luther King that everyone be judged on the content of their character, and turned it back to being classified, grouped, victimized, and rewarded by the color of their skin, by sex, by immigration status, by any other category that could be included, now LGBTQ+ whatever, so people went back into the very groups, and for the same racist and political reasons, as Segregation, and away from the Civil Rights Act that was passed to stop all this.
All the subsequent programs like Affirmative Action, quotas, set asides, diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI), critical race theory (CRT), preferences in everything from college admissions, scholarships, SAT tests, contracts, grants, in fact any benefit awarded to virtually anyone except a white, Christian male, is discrimination, and usually racism, except that this time it is protected, encouraged and funded, by government. This is allegedly based on correcting past wrongs. Well you can’t give restitution for slavery because no one alive today was a slave. You can’t reward people who have passed on or are old, who suffered past discrimination, because they either can’t do those jobs, they don’t exist, or they are probably retired so the opportunity taken no longer exists. You can’t reward younger people because they didn’t suffer any discrimination compared to previous generations, and that will simply punish everyone else today who doesn’t get such a reward. Put simply you can give a benefit to someone today, to make up for discrimination suffered by someone else in the past.
Affirmative Action is a special case, because as I’ve said for years, the qualified don’t need it, and the unqualified don’t deserve it. Also, that merit guarantees diversity because you are always getting the top of every so-called group. But diversity by itself is totally corrupt. It is based on political connections or allegiance, on political correctness, on voter group needs of political parties, to get government grants, or contracts, or virtue signaling and propaganda. There are infinite justifications and consequences of diversity based policies, but they all result in the same thing, a degradation of the quality of employees, of products and services, of technology, of safety, of progress, because nothing good comes from systematically lowering all the standards for political considerations and expediency, and disasters are the inevitable result.
It is in that spirit that this bill, inspired by Charlie Kirk, corrects the Civil Rights Act by retaining all the provisions against individual discrimination, while removing any law, regulation, court decision, or policy, that in any way, rewards or benefits any group, no matter what the rationalization. The Constitution is clear, all American citizens are to be treated equally, with individual rights protected. This bill fixes the Civil Rights Act.
A BILL:
To amend the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to protect the civil rights of individual citizens of the United States without regard to race, color, religion, sex, national origin, ideology, or gun ownership, or other group characteristics; to eliminate disparate impact liability, diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs, critical race theory (CRT) training, affirmative action, and any group-based benefits or remedies; to prohibit promulgation and funding of regulations granting group privileges; to overturn judicial precedents authorizing group-based awards and codify those restricting them; to exempt this Act from judicial review; to limit protections under Title VI to citizens; to enforce violations through criminal penalties under 18 U.S.C. §§ 241–242; to align with the Equal Protection Clause and Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, mandating that all persons be treated exactly the same under law with no special benefit or privilege ever; and for other purposes.
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the “Civil Rights Reform Act of 2025”.
SECTION 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE.
(a) Findings. Congress finds that—
(1) This Act was inspired by Charlie Kirk’s critiques of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, particularly his arguments that disparate impact liability, diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs, critical race theory (CRT) training, and affirmative action create group-based preferences that undermine equal protection and meritocracy.
(2) This Act codifies Supreme Court decisions that uphold individual equality under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection and Privileges or Immunities Clauses and overrules decisions that authorize group-based benefits, as courts lack authority to legislate through opinions; only Congress and state or local legislatures may enact laws under Article I and state constitutions.
(3) The Equal Protection Clause and Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment mandate that no citizen be denied equal protection of the laws or the privileges of citizenship, requiring identical treatment under law without special benefits or privileges based on race, color, religion, sex, national origin, ideology, gun ownership, or any group characteristic.
(4) The Civil Rights Act of 1964’s core prohibitions on discrimination against individuals are essential but have been undermined by judicial interpretations (e.g., disparate impact) and agency regulations (e.g., DEI, CRT, affirmative action) granting group-based benefits, violating equal protection and privileges or immunities.
(5) Remedies or awards favoring specific groups, such as quotas, set-asides, or diversity mandates, discriminate against other individuals and erode meritocracy.
(6) Federal agencies have promulgated regulations (e.g., 29 C.F.R. Part 1607, 41 C.F.R. Part 60) and executive actions (e.g., EO 11246) that prioritize group outcomes over individual rights.
(7) Civil rights protections under this Act, including Title VI, apply solely to citizens of the United States, as privileges and immunities are citizen-specific under the Fourteenth Amendment.
(8) Meritocracy inherently guarantees diversity by selecting the most qualified individuals from all groups, ensuring representation based on ability without artificial preferences.
(9) Prioritizing diversity alone fosters patronage, nepotism, corruption, political correctness, and conformity, artificially lowering the merit of any public or private organization and reducing the safety, expertise, and progress of entities embracing such policies.
(10) The right to keep and bear arms, as protected by the Second Amendment and incorporated via the Fourteenth Amendment, is a fundamental civil right of citizens; any law, regulation, or policy imposing group-based restrictions on gun owners constitutes intentional discrimination and unequal treatment.
(11) Ideological discrimination, including against any political viewpoint, violates the First Amendment (incorporated via the Fourteenth) and undermines free speech and association; such discrimination in employment, education, banking, or other settings must be prohibited equally for all ideologies.
(12) Judicial review, as asserted in Marbury v. Madison (1803), constitutes an unconstitutional seizure of undelegated power under Article III, and Congress may limit such review under its Article I and Fourteenth Amendment authority to enforce equal protection.
(13) The Individual Voting Rights Act of 2025 (as available on WriteYourLaws.com) provides a model for restoring individual-focused civil rights protections.
(b) Purpose. To—
(1) Retain all provisions of the Civil Rights Act prohibiting individual discrimination.
(2) Eliminate remedies, awards, or benefits favoring specific groups, including disparate impact, DEI, CRT, and affirmative action.
(3) Prohibit and defund regulations granting group-based privileges.
(4) Overturn Supreme Court cases authorizing group benefits and codify those restricting them.
(5) Exempt this Act from judicial review to preserve congressional intent.
(6) Limit Title VI protections to citizens and explicitly protect against discrimination based on ideology or gun ownership.
(7) Enforce violations through criminal accountability under 18 U.S.C. §§ 241–242 for conspiracies or deprivations of rights, including illegal group awards at any governmental level.
(8) Ensure all citizens are treated exactly the same under law, per the Fourteenth Amendment.
SECTION 3. LIMITATION ON JUDICIAL REVIEW.
(a) No court of the United States, or of any State, shall have subject matter jurisdiction to review, by any remedy, any action, determination, regulation, or enforcement under this Act.
(b) This limitation is enacted under Congress’s Article I and Fourteenth Amendment, Section 5 authority to prevent judicial overreach and ensure equal protection.
(c) Any judicial action reviewing or modifying this Act shall be null and void; no funds shall be appropriated to enforce such actions.
SECTION 4. ADDITION OF PROTECTED CATEGORIES.
(a) Purpose. The following protected categories, ideology and gun ownership, are being added to the list of race, color, religion, sex, and national origin, as first appearing in the Civil Rights Act of 1964 at 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a), to ensure protections against discrimination in the same manner under the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, consistent with the First Amendment (free speech and association) and Second Amendment (right to keep and bear arms), incorporated via the Fourteenth Amendment’s Privileges or Immunities Clause.
(b) Definitions. For purposes of this Act, and applying where protected categories are first defined at 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a):
(1) “Ideology” means an individual’s political beliefs, speech, or affiliation, encompassing the full range of the political spectrum, from totalitarian to anarchistic, including but not limited to extreme, moderate, or other ideological perspectives. Protections shall apply equally to all viewpoints.
(2) “Gun owner” means an individual’s absolute right to keep and bear arms, as protected by the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, incorporated via the Fourteenth Amendment. Any restriction, regulation, or policy that infringes on this right, including denial of privileges or benefits due to lawful firearm ownership or carrying, constitutes a civil rights violation under this Act.
(c) Amendments to Title VII (Employment). Section 2000e-2 of Title 42, United States Code, is amended—
(1) In subsection (a)(1), by striking “race, color, religion, sex, and national origin” and inserting “race, color, religion, sex, national origin, ideology, and gun ownership”.
(2) In subsection (a)(2), by striking “race, color, religion, sex, or national origin” and inserting “race, color, religion, sex, national origin, ideology, or gun ownership”.
(3) In subsections (b), (c), and (d), by striking “race, color, religion, sex, or national origin” wherever it appears and inserting “race, color, religion, sex, national origin, ideology, or gun ownership”.
(d) Amendments to Title VI (Federally Assisted Programs). Section 2000d of Title 42, United States Code, is amended by striking “race, color, or national origin” and inserting “race, color, national origin, ideology, or gun ownership”.
(e) Amendments to Title IV (Education). Section 1703 of Title 20, United States Code, is amended by striking “race, color, or national origin” and inserting “race, color, national origin, ideology, or gun ownership”.
(f) Amendments to Title II (Public Accommodations). Section 2000a of Title 42, United States Code, is amended by striking “race, color, religion, or national origin” and inserting “race, color, religion, national origin, ideology, or gun ownership”.
(g) Application. The protections for ideology and gun ownership shall apply to all provisions of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, where protected categories are referenced, ensuring that no citizen is discriminated against based on these characteristics in employment, public accommodations, education, or federally funded programs.
SECTION 5. SCOPE OF ANTI-DISCRIMINATION PROVISIONS.
All provisions of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibiting intentional discrimination against individual citizens based on race, color, religion, sex, national origin, ideology, or gun ownership remain in effect unless specifically amended by this Act. No provision shall be construed to authorize group-based remedies or outcomes. Discrimination based on ideology includes adverse actions due to political beliefs, speech, or affiliation (protecting all viewpoints equally). Discrimination based on gun ownership includes any restriction on rights due to lawful firearm possession or carrying, prohibiting group-based gun control measures.
SECTION 6. AMENDMENTS TO ELIMINATE GROUP-BASED REMEDIES.
(a) Title VII (42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq.).
(1) Repeal of Disparate Impact. Section 2000e-2(k) is repealed. Section 2000e-2 is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
“(l) A violation of this section requires proof of intentional discrimination against an individual citizen based on race, color, religion, sex, national origin, ideology, or gun ownership. No practice shall be unlawful based solely on disproportionate impact on any group.”
(2) Remedies. Section 2000e-5(g) is amended to read: “If a court finds an unlawful employment practice under this title, it may enjoin the practice and order such affirmative action as may be appropriate for the individual citizen victim, which may include back pay or reinstatement, with or without back pay. No court or agency shall order group-based relief, including quotas, set-asides, or affirmative action plans.”
(3) Pattern or Practice. Section 2000e-6(a) is amended to read: “Whenever the Attorney General has reasonable cause to believe that any person or group of persons is engaged in a pattern or practice of intentional discrimination against individual citizens based on race, color, religion, sex, national origin, ideology, or gun ownership, in violation of this title, the Attorney General may commence a civil action for appropriate relief limited to individual victims.”
(b) Title VI (42 U.S.C. § 2000d et seq.).
(1) Section 2000d is amended to read: “No citizen in the United States shall, on the ground of race, color, national origin, ideology, or gun ownership, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to intentional discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance. Protections under this title apply solely to citizens of the United States, as the privileges and immunities of citizenship are guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment.”
(2) Section 2000d-1 is amended by adding at the end: “No federal agency shall issue regulations or guidance authorizing or requiring benefits, privileges, or differential treatment based on race, color, national origin, ideology, gun ownership, or other group characteristics, including through disparate impact liability, diversity, equity, and inclusion programs, critical race theory training, or affirmative action.”
(3) Section 2000d-7 is amended to read: “Any termination of or refusal to grant or continue Federal financial assistance under this title shall be limited to programs or activities found to engage in intentional discrimination against individual citizens. No termination shall be based on disproportionate group impact or failure to implement group-based remedies.”
(c) Title IV (20 U.S.C. §§ 1701 et seq.).
Section 1703 is amended to read: “No citizen shall be denied equal educational opportunity by reason of intentional discrimination based on race, color, national origin, ideology, or gun ownership. No desegregation plan shall consider group characteristics; assignments shall use neutral criteria such as geographic proximity or individual merit.”
(d) Title V (42 U.S.C. § 1975a).
Section 1975a is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
“(2) The Commission shall investigate only intentional discrimination against individual citizens based on race, color, national origin, ideology, or gun ownership, and shall not consider group-based outcomes or remedies.”
SECTION 7. PROHIBITION ON GROUP-BASED REGULATIONS AND FUNDING.
(a) Nullification. The following regulations and executive actions, to the extent they authorize or require benefits, privileges, or differential treatment based on race, color, national origin, ideology, gun ownership, or other group characteristics, are nullified, leaving all other provisions intact:
(1) Section 1607.3 of 29 C.F.R. Part 1607 (EEOC Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures, defining discrimination as including disparate impact liability).
(2) Sections 60-2.10 through 60-2.30 of 41 C.F.R. Part 60 (OFCCP affirmative action program requirements for federal contractors, including written plans and utilization goals).
(3) Section 100.3 of 34 C.F.R. Part 100 (Dept. of Education Title VI regulations, interpreting discrimination to include disparate impact and group-based diversity measures).
(4) Parts II and III of Executive Order 11246 (1965, mandating affirmative action plans and non-discrimination clauses requiring group-based preferences).
(5) Any other regulation or guidance promoting disparate impact, DEI, CRT, or group-based gun control.
(b) Prohibition. No agency shall promulgate rules granting benefits or privileges based on group characteristics or promoting DEI, CRT, affirmative action, or group-based gun control measures that discriminate against lawful gun owners or ideological viewpoints.
(c) Defunding. No federal funds shall support such programs; violations are enforceable under 18 U.S.C. §§ 241–242.
(d) Sunset. All federally funded programs relying on group-based criteria shall terminate within 180 days of this Act’s enactment, with funds redirected to neutral, merit-based initiatives, to ensure orderly transition and compliance.
SECTION 8. CORRECTION OF JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS.
(a) Overturned Precedents. The following Supreme Court decisions, which conflict with this Act’s prohibition on group-based benefits and the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection and Privileges or Immunities Clauses, are overruled:
(1) Griggs v. Duke Power Co., 401 U.S. 424 (1971): Established disparate impact liability, allowing group-based statistical claims without proving intentional discrimination, violating equal protection by prioritizing group outcomes over individual merit.
(2) United Steelworkers v. Weber, 443 U.S. 193 (1979): Upheld voluntary affirmative action plans, permitting race-based hiring to address past group disparities, conflicting with colorblindness and equal treatment.
(3) Regents of Univ. of Cal. v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265 (1978): Permitted limited race-based admissions, to the extent it allows group preferences, undermining the Fourteenth Amendment’s mandate of equal protection for individuals.
(4) Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Bd. of Educ., 402 U.S. 1 (1971): Authorized race-based school assignments for desegregation, prioritizing group balancing over individual equality, contrary to this Act’s neutral criteria.
(5) Metro Broadcasting, Inc. v. FCC, 497 U.S. 547 (1990): Upheld minority preferences in licensing under intermediate scrutiny, conflicting with the strict scrutiny required for group-based policies under the Fourteenth Amendment.
(b) Codified Precedents. The following decisions are codified as consistent with this Act and the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection and privileges or immunities for individual citizens:
(1) Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. Harvard, 600 U.S. ___ (2023): Struck down race-based admissions, affirming that group preferences violate equal protection, extended here to all federally funded programs and employment.
(2) Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Peña, 515 U.S. 200 (1995): Required strict scrutiny for federal race-based programs, ensuring individual equality over group benefits; while strict scrutiny is a judicial review mechanism, the outcome prohibiting unjustified group preferences aligns with this Act’s colorblindness mandate and is adopted as a substantive rule of equal protection.
(3) City of Richmond v. J.A. Croson Co., 488 U.S. 469 (1989): Prohibited minority set-asides absent specific evidence of individual discrimination, aligning with this Act’s rejection of group remedies.
(4) Parents Involved in Cmty. Schs. v. Seattle Sch. Dist. No. 1, 551 U.S. 701 (2007): Struck down race-based school assignments, upholding neutral criteria as required by equal protection, consistent with this Act’s educational amendments.
(5) McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010): Incorporated the Second Amendment via the Fourteenth Amendment, recognizing gun ownership as a fundamental civil right, supporting this Act’s protection of gun owners against group-based discrimination.
(6) Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138 (1983): Protected ideological speech in public employment under the First Amendment (via the Fourteenth), extended here to private settings to prohibit ideological discrimination.
(c) Congressional Authority and Agency Enforcement. Pursuant to Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment, Congress declares that no law, regulation, or judicial decision shall grant or deny rights, privileges, or benefits based on group characteristics, ensuring all citizens are treated exactly the same under law.
(1) Enforcement of Codified Precedents. The Attorney General and all federal agencies, including but not limited to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs, and the Department of Education, shall incorporate the principles of the codified decisions listed in subsection (b) into all regulations, guidance, enforcement actions, and funding decisions under the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended. This includes ensuring that no program or policy grants preferences based on race, color, national origin, ideology, gun ownership, or other group characteristics, and that all decisions prioritize individual merit and neutral criteria.
(2) Prohibition on Reviving Overturned Precedents. No federal agency shall issue regulations, guidance, or enforcement actions that rely on, reinstate, or otherwise apply the principles of the overruled decisions listed in subsection (a), including but not limited to disparate impact liability, race-based affirmative action, or group-based remedies. Any such action shall be deemed a violation of this Act, enforceable under 18 U.S.C. §§ 241–242.
SECTION 9. ENFORCEMENT.
(a) Criminal Accountability. Violations of this Act, including illegal awards of group rights, privileges, or benefits (e.g., DEI quotas, ideological bias in promotions/scholarships, or gun control targeting owners) at federal, state, or local levels, shall be punishable under 18 U.S.C. § 241 (conspiracy against rights, up to 7 years imprisonment and fines) and § 242 (deprivation under color of law, up to 7 years imprisonment and fines). Assets gained through such violations by individuals, corporations, or organizations (e.g., profits from discriminatory DEI programs or endowments supporting quota-based admissions) shall be subject to forfeiture under procedures modeled on 18 U.S.C. § 1963. The Attorney General shall prioritize prosecutions.
(b) The Attorney General may bring civil actions for intent-based violations, with remedies limited to individual equitable relief.
(c) Individual citizens may sue for equitable relief; no class actions based on group outcomes are permitted.
(d) All provisions shall ensure exact equal treatment under law.
SECTION 10. SEVERABILITY.
If any provision of this Act is held invalid, the remainder shall not be affected.
SECTION 11. EFFECTIVE DATE.
This Act takes effect upon being signed into law.
ENDORSEMENTS:
BILL STATUS:
COMMENTS: