S-751-119
Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Sponsored by Cory Booker (D-NJ)
What it does
The CROWN Act of 2025 would prohibit discrimination based on a person's hair texture or hairstyle when that texture or style is commonly associated with a particular race or national origin. The prohibition would apply across four domains: federally assisted programs, housing, public accommodations, and employment. Enforcement would follow the existing procedures established under the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and other applicable federal civil rights laws.
Who benefits
Black Americans, who are most frequently affected by workplace and school policies targeting natural hairstyles such as locs, braids, twists, and Afros. Other racial and ethnic groups whose traditional or natural hairstyles are culturally associated with their heritage, including some Latino, Native American, and South Asian individuals. Job applicants and employees who have faced adverse hiring or disciplinary decisions based on hair. Tenants and public accommodation users who have experienced similar treatment. Civil rights attorneys and advocacy organizations who would gain a new enforcement tool.
Who is hurt
Employers, landlords, and businesses that currently maintain grooming or appearance standards that could be challenged under the new law, who would face potential litigation exposure and compliance costs. Small businesses with limited HR infrastructure that may struggle to update and enforce revised grooming policies. Federal agencies and federally assisted program administrators who would need to review and revise existing standards. Defendants in civil rights suits who may face expanded liability under a broadened definition of race discrimination.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that hair-based discrimination is a documented and widespread form of racial discrimination — a 2019 Dove/JOY Collective study found Black women are 1.5 times more likely to be sent home from work due to their hair and 83% more likely to report being judged more harshly for their appearance. They contend that existing federal civil rights law has not consistently protected against this specific form of discrimination, leaving a gap that 24 states have already moved to fill with their own CROWN Act legislation, demonstrating broad, bipartisan recognition of the problem at the state level.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that existing federal law — including Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and the Supreme Court's ruling in Bostock v. Clayton County (2020) — already provides sufficient tools to challenge discriminatory grooming policies, making a separate federal statute unnecessary. They contend that extending protected class status to hairstyles, rather than immutable biological characteristics, could create ambiguity in enforcement, generate excessive litigation against employers with legitimate uniform or safety-based grooming standards, and set a precedent for expanding civil rights protections beyond characteristics that courts have traditionally recognized as warranting heightened scrutiny.
Constitutional context
Congress's authority to prohibit discrimination in employment and public accommodations rests on the Commerce Clause, as affirmed in Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States (1964), and on its Section 5 enforcement power under the 14th Amendment. Because the bill targets discrimination tied to race and national origin — classifications subject to strict scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause — it would likely satisfy the congruence-and-proportionality standard from City of Boerne v. Flores (1997), provided Congress builds a sufficient legislative record of documented harm.
Checks and balances
Congress would expand the scope of federal civil rights protections; the Executive Branch (EEOC, HUD, and DOJ) would gain enforcement authority in the new covered areas; federal courts would serve as the check by adjudicating individual claims and reviewing the law's scope and application.
Historical precedent
Twenty-four states have enacted their own CROWN Act laws since California became the first in 2019; this bill would establish a uniform federal floor where those state laws do not exist.