PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Border Security and Enforcement.
Congressional Research Service
No official summary is available in the imported record yet.
People & committees
Rep. Wasserman Schultz, Debbie [D-FL-25] · D–FL
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Border Security and Enforcement.
Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on Homeland Security, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on Homeland Security, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We also preserved the text version used in the PlainBill explanation below.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Aug 12, 2026. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.10011 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.10011 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.10011 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.10011 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.
PlainBill explanation
Based on the full Introduced in House · 2026-07-30 text. This explanation has not received human editorial review. This overview describes the proposal’s major provisions; it does not establish what its real-world effects would be.
The proposed No PREJUDICE Act would prohibit Department of Homeland Security personnel and people acting under its authority from stopping, detaining, arresting, or investigating people based on listed personal characteristics, employment-related circumstances, activities, or language use. People facing immigration removal proceedings could ask a federal district court to review an alleged violation. If the court found a violation, it would have to dismiss those removal proceedings.
This Act may be cited as the No Person’s Race, Ethnicity, Job, or Use of Dialect or Inflection is Cause for Enforcement Act or the No PREJUDICE Act.
No officer or employee of the Department of Homeland Security, or a person acting under the authority of the Department of Homeland Security, may seize, detain, or arrest an individual, or subject an individual to routine or spontaneous investigatory activities on the basis of any of the following, or any combination thereof:
(1) The actual or perceived race, color, religion, sex, national origin, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, or ethnicity of the individual. (2) The presence of that individual at a location associated with the recruitment or transportation of individuals for informal or temporary employment, including bus stops, car washes, or agricultural sites. (3) Participation by that individual in a particular hobby, leisure activity, job, or career. (4) The use of Spanish or any language other than English, or the use of English with an accent, by that individual.
(1) Request for hearing An alien who in removal proceedings under the immigration laws (as such term is defined in section 101 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101)) may request a hearing in the appropriate district court of the United States to determine whether the prohibition under subsection (a) was violated with respect to the alien. (2) Dismissal If the district judge determines that the prohibition under subsection (a) was violated with respect to the alien, the judge shall dismiss the removal proceedings against the alien.
The proposed restriction would cover seizures, detention, arrests, and routine or spontaneous investigations by Homeland Security personnel or anyone acting under the department’s authority. It would prohibit using any listed ground or a combination of those grounds as the basis for those actions.
No officer or employee of the Department of Homeland Security, or a person acting under the authority of the Department of Homeland Security, may seize, detain, or arrest an individual, or subject an individual to routine or spontaneous investigatory activities on the basis of any of the following, or any combination thereof:
Protected characteristics would include actual or perceived race, color, religion, sex, national origin, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, and ethnicity. The restriction would therefore cover assumptions about a person’s identity as well as their actual characteristics.
(1) The actual or perceived race, color, religion, sex, national origin, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, or ethnicity of the individual.
Other prohibited grounds would include being at a place associated with recruiting or transporting people for informal or temporary work, participating in a particular hobby or occupation, speaking a language other than English, or speaking English with an accent. The location provision gives bus stops, car washes, and agricultural sites as examples connected to that employment context.
(2) The presence of that individual at a location associated with the recruitment or transportation of individuals for informal or temporary employment, including bus stops, car washes, or agricultural sites. (3) Participation by that individual in a particular hobby, leisure activity, job, or career. (4) The use of Spanish or any language other than English, or the use of English with an accent, by that individual.
A noncitizen facing immigration removal proceedings—the process for deciding whether someone must leave the country—could request a hearing in the appropriate federal district court to determine whether the proposed prohibition was violated in their case.
(1) Request for hearing An alien who in removal proceedings under the immigration laws (as such term is defined in section 101 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101)) may request a hearing in the appropriate district court of the United States to determine whether the prohibition under subsection (a) was violated with respect to the alien.
If the district judge found a violation affecting that person, the judge would be required to dismiss the removal proceedings against them.
(2) Dismissal If the district judge determines that the prohibition under subsection (a) was violated with respect to the alien, the judge shall dismiss the removal proceedings against the alien.
If the district judge found no violation affecting that person, the judge would be required to send the case back to immigration court for further removal proceedings.
(3) Remand If the district judge determines that the prohibition under subsection (a) was not violated with respect to the alien, the judge shall remand the case to the immigration court for further removal proceedings.
The supplied August 12, 2026 source snapshot records introduction in the House and referral to the Judiciary and Homeland Security committees on July 30, 2026, followed by referral to the Subcommittee on Border Security and Enforcement on July 31, 2026.
Source snapshot updated 2026-08-12T08:12:01Z. 2026-07-31: Referred to the Subcommittee on Border Security and Enforcement. 2026-07-30: Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on Homeland Security, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
2026-07-30: Introduced in House
A closer look
Reviewed version: Introduced in House · 2026-07-30. These findings describe provisions and who may benefit; they are not judgments of waste, corruption, or motive.
This review covers the supplied bill text. “None identified” does not rule out provisions in later versions or accompanying reports and disclosures.
Provisions outside the bill’s main subject, or policy changes attached to appropriations.
None identified in the reviewed text
No unrelated provision or policy change attached to appropriations was identified in the supplied complete introduced text. This conclusion is limited to that version and does not establish what other versions or accompanying materials contain.
Spending directed to particular recipients or places outside ordinary competitive or formula-based allocation.
None identified in the reviewed text
No congressionally directed spending for particular recipients or places was identified in the supplied complete introduced text. This conclusion does not establish the contents of other versions or accompanying earmark disclosures and committee materials.
Narrow exceptions, exemptions, or preferential treatment that warrant a closer look.
None identified in the reviewed text
No materially narrow preferential carve-out was identified in the supplied complete introduced text. The protections and related court remedy are part of its main policy; their stated coverage alone does not establish preferential treatment. This conclusion is limited to the supplied version.
Full text preserved for this analysis. Legislative record snapshot: Aug 12, 2026. How PlainBill uses AI