America’s law schools may soon have far less support—and far less pressure—to be diverse and inclusive spaces. In May, the American Bar Association (ABA) committee responsible for overseeing accreditation voted to repeal Standard 206, its diversity and inclusion rule, which requires law schools to take concrete steps to create diverse, equitable, and inclusive learning environments in order to maintain accreditation. The change could become final as early as August if approved by the ABA House of Delegates, paving the way for the rule’s elimination by 2027.

This is a dangerous move. The legal profession is already one of the least diverse professions in America.^[1] Now—during an era of widespread rollbacks of diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives, fueled by an administration seeking to return the country to a time when opportunity was reserved for a select few—we need diverse law schools more than ever.

A diverse and inclusive legal profession is indispensable to the pursuit of justice in America. Where would our nation be without the lawyers who stood alongside civil rights activists, supported the women’s suffrage movement, or helped build a more inclusive society for LGBTQ+ people? America needs lawyers from every type of community, identity, and socioeconomic background, bringing a wide range of perspectives, experiences, and passions to the profession.

We also need law schools whose student bodies reflect the diversity of both our nation and the communities their graduates will serve. In an increasingly diverse society, a legal profession that reflects the public strengthens trust in the justice system,^[2] improves perceptions of fairness among marginalized communities,^[3] fosters innovation^[4] through a broader range of perspectives, and enhances client representation^[5] by better reflecting the populations lawyers serve.

The ABA has long been responsible for accrediting America’s law schools and establishing the standards by which they are evaluated. Standard 206 states, in part, that “a law school shall demonstrate by concrete action a commitment to diversity and inclusion by providing full opportunities for the study of law and entry into the profession by members of underrepresented groups.”^[6] A similar provision was adopted to address diversity among law school faculty.

Early in his tenure, President Trump’s administration placed a target on diversity efforts within the legal profession. In 2025, the administration began pressuring the ABA to eliminate Standard 206, arguing that it is unlawful in light of the Supreme Court’s 2023 decision in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard (SFFA). That claim is incorrect.

SFFA prohibits the consideration of race in higher education admissions decisions; it does not prohibit race-neutral efforts designed to increase diversity and equity within law schools. Following the Supreme Court’s decision, the ABA undertook a thorough process to revise Standard 206 to ensure compliance with the law, publishing a near-final version of the rule in February 2025.

The proposed revisions included a range of race-neutral measures that both comply with SFFA and help law schools foster more inclusive environments. These measures included “admissions policies, processes, and practices aimed at evaluating each applicant’s potential holistically”; “recruitment efforts targeted at groups that have been disadvantaged in or excluded from the legal profession”; “programs aimed at meeting the academic and financial needs of all students”; and “efforts aimed at creating a supportive learning environment for all students in the law school.”

Yet, in response to mounting pressure from the federal government, the ABA chose to suspend the rule rather than finalize those revisions. It is now poised to repeal Standard 206 altogether.

This decision would harm generations of future lawyers and the communities they could serve.

Standard 206 represents a modest but important step toward addressing a long history in which America’s law schools were overwhelmingly white and affluent institutions rather than representative of the nation’s full range of talent. When the ABA was founded in 1878, it was an entirely white, male organization. Black lawyers were not admitted for another 70 years. Today, the ABA includes more than 300,000 lawyers, judges, and law students from a wide range of backgrounds. That progress did not happen by accident. It resulted from intentional efforts to diversify both the legal profession and the educational institutions that feed into it.

Capitulating to anti-diversity pressure would advance the goals of an administration that seeks to move America backward rather than forward. Standard 206 established a minimum expectation that accredited law schools actively pursue equity and inclusion. While imperfect, it remains a critical tool at a time when exclusionary policies and attacks on diversity efforts are becoming increasingly common.

For these reasons, the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, in partnership with Howard Law School’s Civil Rights Clinic, submitted a comment opposing the proposed repeal. Our submission was one of dozens urging the ABA to preserve or strengthen the existing rule.^[7]

The Lawyers’ Committee has been deeply engaged in efforts to advance diversity, equity, and inclusion through litigation, policy advocacy, and organizing. We have consistently challenged efforts to dismantle DEI initiatives. As we noted in our comment: “The legitimacy of the justice system is strengthened when the profession is accessible, and law schools foster a sense of belonging, as this leads to cross-cultural understanding, better advocacy, and greater public confidence.”^[8]

Black law students already report that many law schools fall short of being sufficiently diverse and inclusive. Eliminating Standard 206 would only deepen that problem. There would likely be fewer programs designed to cultivate belonging among Black students and faculty, fewer pipeline initiatives aimed at expanding access, and, in many cases, a regression toward more exclusionary educational environments.

Howard Law’s Civil Rights Clinic surveyed Black law students across the country, and the results underscore the need for continued ABA oversight of diversity and inclusion efforts. The survey found that 71 percent of respondents believed a lack of diversity created a learning environment in which it was more difficult to participate fully in classes, events, and activities. Fifty-seven percent reported that a lack of diversity undermined their ability to receive an adequate educational experience.

The survey also found that although 90 percent of respondents had access to affinity groups at their law schools, some students still felt there were no truly safe and supportive spaces in which to discuss diverse perspectives and experiences.

In short, the ABA has already done the work necessary to ensure that Standard 206 complies with the law. Repealing the standard would represent both a retreat from the ABA’s responsibility to the legal profession and a capitulation to political pressure grounded in a flawed understanding of diversity efforts.

Lawyers have long stood among the last lines of defense against systemic inequality. At a moment like this, we need more—not fewer—measures that help talented people from every community enter the legal profession. Without Standard 206, the profession will suffer, and underrepresented communities across the country will bear the consequences. If America’s law schools abandon meaningful commitments to diversity and inclusion, the promise of equal justice for all will remain frustratingly out of reach.

^[1] Sybil Dunlop and Jenny Gassman-Pines, “Why the Legal Profession Is the Nation’s Least Diverse (And How to Fix It),” Mitchell Hamline Law Review 47, no. 1 (2021).

^[2] Phyllis D. Thompson, “Focus on Diversity: Why Diversity Must Matter to the Bar Admissions Community,” The Bar Examiner 89, no. 1 (2020): 65–67.

^[3] Shani M. King, “Race, Identity, and Professional Responsibility: Why Legal Services Organizations Need African American Staff Attorneys,” UF Law Faculty Publications (Fall 2008).

^[4] Sylvia Ann Hewlett, Melinda Marshall, and Laura Sherbin, “How Diversity Can Drive Innovation,” Harvard Business Review, December 2013.

^[5] Dev Stahlkopf, “Why Diversity Matters in the Selection and Engagement of Outside Counsel: An In-House Counsel’s Perspective,” American Bar Association, May 6, 2020.

^[6] American Bar Association Standards Committee, memorandum to the Council, “Recommended Revisions for Final Approval—Standard 206,” February 13, 2025.

^[7] Civil Rights Clinic at Howard University School of Law and Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, letter to Daniel Thies, Chair, Council of the American Bar Association Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar, regarding “Proposed Repeal of Standard 206 (Diversity and Inclusion),” April 13, 2026.

^[8] Howard Civil Rights Clinic and Lawyers’ Committee, letter regarding “Proposed Repeal of Standard 206.”

Earlier this year, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas dismissed Students for Fair Admissions (“SFFA”) v. University of Texas at Austin, a case that had been winding through the courts since 2020. But the dismissal does not mean the issues at the heart of the case have gone away. Instead, it reflects a troubling reality: in response to legal and political pressure, UT-Austin adopted an admissions policy that goes beyond what the Supreme Court actually required in its 2023 SFFA v. Harvard and UNC decision—and in doing so, may have made it harder to recruit and support a diverse student body.

After the Supreme Court’s 2023 decision, UT-Austin updated its admissions policy to comply with the law, ending any consideration of race in admissions decisions. But, after unrelenting pressure from SFFA, the university went a step too far: It also barred admissions staff from accessing applicants’ racial demographic data at any point in the process, even after students had been admitted. That extra step was not required by the Court’s ruling, and it could undermine the university’s ability to conduct meaningful outreach to admitted students from underrepresented backgrounds and connect them with relevant opportunities.

In Harvard, the Court said colleges may not give students an admissions advantage or disadvantage based on race. In other words, race cannot be used as a factor for or against an applicant in admissions decisions. But as Chief Justice Roberts wrote, nothing in the opinion prevents “universities from considering an applicant’s discussion of how race has shaped their life, whether through discrimination, inspiration, or otherwise.” Students may still discuss their identity and lived experiences in their application essays, even when that may reveal information about their race, so long as admissions officers do not reward or penalize them on that basis.

The ruling was focused on one issue: colleges cannot rely on race when deciding whether to admit a student. It does not prohibit admissions staff from seeing demographic information throughout the admissions and recruitment process.

Despite the Supreme Court’s narrow decision, SFFA insisted that to comply with the Supreme Court’s ruling in Harvard, UT-Austin had to shield its admissions personnel from being able to view applicants’ demographic data–often called racial “check-box” data–altogether, even after that student had been admitted. SFFA’s claims have no basis in the law.

Because SFFA’s complaint was legally unfounded and threatened students’ ability to be considered fully and fairly in the admissions cycle, the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights, on behalf of a group of student-intervenors, combated the changes SFFA demanded. These intervenors included eight UT-Austin students and several student and community organizations who joined the lawsuit to ensure that the court understood the importance of having a diverse campus, where all students can access education and succeed.

But UT-Austin ultimately succumbed to the pressure, agreeing to SFFA’s demands even though they were not legally required.

UT Austin’s Policy Change Appeases Students for Fair Admissions

Between 2020 and mid-2025, UT-Austin continuously maintained its legal right to view applicants’ entire admissions file, defending that position before the federal district court and federal appeals court. The university’s admissions personnel maintained access to applicants’ full applications—including racial demographic information to help inform their outreach strategies —because nothing in SFFA v. Harvard mandates otherwise.

Then, in the fall of 2025, UT-Austin capitulated to SFFA’s relentless demands. It voluntarily changed its admissions policy so that no one in the admissions office can access the demographic data of applicants during the entirety of the admissions process, even for students who had already been admitted. This decision could have ramifications for the university’s ability to recruit admitted students by limiting its ability to send them relevant information. Specifically, this change will impede admissions officers from engaging in targeted recruitment to admitted students from underrepresented backgrounds because they do not have access to basic demographic information.

Student and Organizational Intervenors Speak Out

Student-Intervenors are disappointed by UT-Austin’s decision to cave to pressure from SFFA. It signals to current students and alumni that UT-Austin is no longer committed to undertaking robust efforts to recruit, admit, and matriculate a diverse student body because its actions greatly impede the recruitment of underrepresented students.

For the students who intervened in this case, these changes are not abstract legal shifts—they are part of a broader erosion of the policies, programs, and support systems that help make UT-Austin a more inclusive place to learn.

Many of these changes on campus followed the passage of Texas SB 17 in 2023—an anti-diversity, equity, and inclusion measure—and SB 37 in 2025—a law that shifts curriculum oversight away from faculty to the Board of Regents appointed by Republican Governor Greg Abbott.

Over the last two years, the school has:

• Closed its Multicultural Engagement Center;

• Shuttered 21 offices and eliminated 311 full-and part-time positions that supported students from underrepresented background;

• Fired the senior vice provost for Academic Affairs for “ideological differences” despite 27 years of service; and

• Launched an audit into its gender studies courses.

The governor also installed a new university president with a partisan background instead of an educational background, making him the first president in over 100 years to lack any teaching experience.

To put a finer point on it, the hurdles UT-Austin erected to recruiting a diverse student body are part and parcel of a broader dismantling of UT-Austin’s previous support for its underrepresented students and will likely alter the composition of the university’s student body for decades to come.

Brianna M., UT alumna and a student intervenor in the case explained:

“UT-Austin is supposed to be the flagship university for the state of Texas, which is an incredibly diverse state. This settlement feels like they’re trying to end the litigation without actually protecting underrepresented students and preserving lawful admissions practices. We are not on the path we should be as a university. This demonstrates that.”

A recent alum and student intervenor, Rosaleen X., added, “UT is where I learned to care about racial justice and where I grew so much as a human being, and I find it almost unrecognizable today compared to when I was a student there. It is such a loss to the state of Texas.”

Beyond the Courtroom – What Happens Next?

This case may be over, but the fight for educational equity is not. Students, alumni, and other UT-Austin stakeholders can take action now through the following ways:

• Speak out: Share concerns with university leadership, on social media, and with the President’s office directly.

• Correct the record: Help others understand that the changes UT-Austin made were not required by the Supreme Court’s decision in SFFA v. Harvard.

• Get informed and get involved: Explore the resources below to learn more about your rights and available advocacy strategies.

The Lawyers’ Committee will continue working to ensure that access to higher education remains fair, equitable, and open to all students, regardless of race or background.

🔗 Additional Resources:

Learn More

• Principles for Racial Equity in Higher Education: From Brown to Harvard How did we get here and where do we go next? (Lawyers’ Committee)

• Summary of the Supreme Court’s Decision in SFFA v. Harvard and UNC (Lawyers’ Committee)

• The Department of Justice’s “Guidance for Recipients of Federal Funding on Unlawful Discrimination”: What You Need to Know (Lawyers’ Committee, LDF, AAJC, Latino Justice, NWLC, and Democracy Forward)

Take Action

• On-Campus Advocacy Strategies For Students and Student Organizations (Lawyers’ Committee)

• Strategies for Leveraging Alumni Status to Advocate for Racial Equality (Lawyer’s Committee)

• Response Letter to Administration’s Compact for Colleges (Lawyers’ Committee, LDF, and NWLC)

Correct the Record

• Correcting the Record: College Essays Can and Should Help Schools See the Whole Student (Lawyers’ Committee, LDF, AAJC, Latino Justice, and NWLC)

Stay Connected

For more information and additional resources, visit the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law’s Educational Opportunities Project webpage.

1. Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, “Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA) v. University of Texas at Austin.” Accessed April 13, 2026.

   https://www.lawyerscommittee.org/students-for-fair-admissions-sffa-v-university-of-texas-at-austin/

2. GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders (GLAD). n.d. “SFFA v. Harvard and UNC.” Accessed April 13, 2026. https://www.gladlaw.org/cases/sffa-v-harvard-unc/.

3. American Council on Education. 2023. “The SFFA v. Harvard and UNC in Admissions Cases: Reactions to the U.S. Supreme Court’s Ruling.” July 5, 2023. https://www.acenet.edu/Documents/Issue-Brief-SCOTUS-SFFA-Harvard-UNC.pdf

4. Parker, Bryan C. n.d. “The University of Texas is Tilting Along a New Political Axis.” Austin Monthly. Accessed April 13, 2026. https://www.austinmonthly.com/the-university-of-texas-is-tilting-along-a-new-political-axis/

Why This Case Matters

With oral argument in Media Matters for America v. Federal Trade Commission scheduled for April 13, 2026, the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law recently filed an amicus brief defending the right of civil rights organizations to advocate against online hate and discrimination without fear of retaliatory government action.

At the center of this case is a sweeping civil investigative demand issued by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to Media Matters because of its reporting on hate speech, a demand that seeks expansive internal records in connection with advertiser boycotts and alleged antitrust violations.

But this case is about more than one organization.

It raises a fundamental question: Can the government use its investigative powers in ways that chill advocacy aimed at combating hate and discrimination?

For civil rights organizations, the answer matters deeply.

“When the government uses its investigative power in ways that burden advocacy, it threatens more than one organization—it sends a warning to every group working to challenge hate and discrimination. Civil rights advocacy is protected expression, not unlawful coordination,” said Leah Frazier, director of the Digital Justice Initiative, Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law.

What’s at Stake

Online hate speech and discrimination continue to disproportionately harm Black communities and other communities of color. Civil rights groups regularly speak out, publish research, engage companies, and advocate for corporate accountability, including when platforms fail to address harmful content.

That advocacy sometimes includes encouraging advertisers or companies to examine where their dollars are spent.

Our brief explains that boycotts organized for social or political change, particularly those aimed at addressing discrimination, are protected under the First Amendment. Civil rights advocacy is not a commercial conspiracy. It is core democratic participation.

When government investigatory tools are used in ways that burden or intimidate advocacy organizations, the effect can be chilling. Nonprofits with limited resources may be forced to divert time and funding away from mission-driven work to respond to expansive document demands and legal compliance.

The result? Fewer voices speaking out against injustice.

Who We’re Standing With

The Lawyers’ Committee, along with co-counsel Brendan Benedict of Benedict Law Group PLLC, filed this brief alongside nine national civil rights organizations representing diverse communities across the country. Together, we share a concern that allowing broad investigative demands to target advocacy work could weaken protections that civil rights movements have relied on for decades.

This case is not simply about one investigation. It is about safeguarding the ability of nonprofits and public interest organizations to advocate, boldly and without fear, for racial justice and equality.

What Happens Next

Oral argument is scheduled for April 13, 2026.

The court’s decision will have implications not only for Media Matters, but for advocacy organizations nationwide. At stake is whether civil rights groups can continue to challenge discrimination and hold powerful institutions accountable without facing retaliatory burdens.

We will continue to fight, inside and outside the courts, to ensure that constitutional protections remain strong for those working to advance justice.

Explore this and other 2026 amicus brief filings on our website

In May 2020, the world watched George Floyd take his last breath beneath the knee of a police officer. For nine minutes and twenty-nine seconds, he called for help. He called for his mother. He said he could not breathe. Officer Derek Chauvin took Mr. Floyd’s life in public view and other officers on the scene did nothing about it. In response, people across all 50 states and around the world took to the streets to protest the brutality that Mr. Floyd and so many other people of color before him experienced at the hands of police.

That summer, between 15 million to 26 million people participated in demonstrations against police violence—the largest protest movement in American history. Amidst a global pandemic, people marched. They organized in their communities. They posted, boycotted, educated, and demanded accountability. The message was clear: enough.

In the weeks and months that followed, institutions promised change. Police departments pledged reform, corporations issued statements, and governments introduced legislation. For many, there was hope. It felt like the country had reached a turning point, a moment where the nation was finally meaningfully confronting its longstanding crisis of police violence and systemic racism. Yet five years later, we face a difficult truth: for every year that we have complete statistics, police killings have increased every year since Mr. Floyd’s killing.1

The hope for meaningful change people felt in the summer of 2020 is belied by the harsh reality that police continue to kill more than a 1,000 people each year, including a disproportionate number of Black people. Black people are nearly three times more likely to be killed by police than white people, and in some states, the disparity is even greater. In Minnesota, where Mr. Floyd was killed, Black people are over four times more likely to be killed by police.

Police violence causes psychological harm to individuals subjected to it, which in turn affects entire communities, creating lasting trauma that impacts generations. Too many Black communities across the country experience the impacts of police violence and overpolicing. This violence is not limited to one individual, one department, one city, or one moment in time. It is not the result of a few isolated actors. It is widespread and structural, embedded in systems that shape how policing operates across the country.

There is no single explanation for the gap between promise and reality. Rather, it reflects a network of structural failures, including a lack of accountability structures and a toxic culture within police departments, that allow harmful practices to persist. Police departments often operate without meaningful accountability to the people they have sworn to serve and protect. Internal oversight breaks down when supervisors fail to hold officers accountable or challenge harmful department cultures. Training alone cannot address systems and cultures that allow misconduct without consequence. External accountability has also weakened in many instances. Federal oversight of police misconduct has been significantly scaled back under the current administration, while federal law enforcement involvement in local communities has increased, leaving communities with fewer avenues for justice and more police on their streets. Court systems frequently make it extraordinarily difficult to hold officers accountable for civil rights violations. When systems fail to produce consequences and police departments fail to address harmful cultures, police continue to harm people. This is not simply a policy problem. It is structural.

To understand the present moment, we must also confront the past. Origins of modern policing in the United States can be traced to slave patrols in the early 1700s, systems designed to monitor, control, and suppress Black populations. Later, policing was a key mechanism for enforcing segregation during Reconstruction and the Jim Crow era. These histories shaped institutions and practices that continue to influence outcomes today.

Alongside this legacy of injustice is a long tradition of Black resistance, perseverance, and collective action. For generations, Black communities have organized, protested, litigated, educated, and demanded change. Iconic leaders helped shape this movement, but so did everyday people whose determination to live, organize, and demand dignity challenged systems designed to deny their humanity. Black history is not only a record of oppression. It is a record of resilience, courage, and transformation.

In moments like this, we are reminded of the moral clarity that has long guided the struggle for civil rights. Rev. Jesse Jackson, whose lifelong work helped shape modern movements for justice and whose recent passing marks the loss of a towering voice for equality, often said, “Never look down on anybody unless you’re helping him up.” His words speak to the responsibility we share to protect one another’s dignity and humanity. They remind us that justice is not only about confronting injustice, but about building systems that uplift, protect, and preserve life.

Many communities are still fighting for something fundamental: the right to live. People are tired. Black people are tired. Families and communities of color are tired of systems that fail to protect them and institutions that repeatedly fall short of their promises.

Because the problem is systemic, the solutions must be systemic as well. Real change requires more than isolated reforms or individual training programs. It requires transformation at every level of the system, from individual accountability and culture to policy and oversight. And the burden of achieving that change cannot fall solely on those who are most harmed by police violence. Police can—and must—stop police from harming people.

The movement for justice did not end in 2020, and neither can our commitment to change. Across the country, people continue to organize in their communities, advocate for policy reform, and demand accountability in streets, classrooms, courtrooms, and legislatures. At the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, we carry this work forward every day through litigation and advocacy that challenges injustice and holds police departments accountable for pervasive misconduct.

Our Criminal Justice Project was established to challenge the racial disparities that persist across the criminal legal system. A core focus of this work is police reform. We work to make law enforcement more transparent and accountable to the communities they serve, particularly Black and Brown communities that bear the brunt of misconduct. We challenge unconstitutional practices including excessive force, unlawful arrests, and racial profiling. By holding police departments accountable, the Criminal Justice Project helps communities demand the safe, fair, and constitutional policing they deserve.

In May of 2025, the Department of Justice largely abandoned their efforts to hold police departments accountable for unconstitutional patterns and practices. But the Department of Justice is not the only game in town; we in the Civil Rights community are picking up their slack to ensure that these departments do not escape accountability. For example, we are working with local advocates to bring justice and relief to the Black residents of Lexington, Mississippi who have been systemically brutalized and discriminated against by local police.

Further, the Lawyers’ Committee supports policy solutions, notably the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act. The Act would foster more effective and humane policing practices and strengthen police accountability through the courts. The law aims to make it easier for individuals to sue when law enforcement officers violate their constitutional rights, including by ending qualified immunity. Additionally, the Act would create a national registry of officers who have broken the law or committed misconduct, to prevent them from simply being re-hired in another state.

But legislative and court victories alone cannot create the transformation communities deserve. Lasting change requires sustained public engagement, structural reform, and collective action from all of us.

Preserving life and liberty demands nothing less. Black people deserve to live. Black communities deserve safety without fear. Justice calls on all of us not only to remember, but to act.

The Senate spent hours debating the SAVE America Act over the last two weeks before adjourning last night without passing it. Proponents of the bill attempted to change Senate rules, vowed to raise the bill again upon the Senate’s return and import pieces of the bill to other must-pass legislation and offensively likened its debate to the struggle for the Civil Rights Act. The stakes and outlandish rhetoric make it clear: the SAVE America Act is not simply another election bill. It is the latest version of a recurring effort to turn false narratives about noncitizen voting into new restrictions on democratic participation. Whether introduced as the SAVE Act, the SAVE America Act, or the Make Elections Great Again Act, the strategy is familiar: recycle the same exclusionary ideas under a new name and use them to make voting harder. The cynical restrictions would especially impact Black and Brown voters, students, people with disabilities, low-income voters, and other communities already navigating systemic barriers to participation. What is being sold as election integrity is better understood as part of a broader effort to narrow access to the ballot by fabricating a crisis. And the costs will fall most heavily on the communities least able to absorb them.

A Recycled Strategy

This pattern does not depend on any one bill. Before one proposal fully fades, another appears with slightly different branding and similar restrictions. Variations of the same proof of citizenship push have been recycled for more than a decade, including Kobach-era efforts at the state level, without any proof of widespread noncitizen voting. Furthermore, the same agenda has also been pursued through executive action. In March 2025, President Trump issued an executive order titled “Preserving and Protecting the Integrity of American Elections,” aimed at advancing the same proof-of-citizenship requirements and other election restrictions through federal action. And with the 2026 midterms approaching, this renewed push is part of a broader effort to shape who can fully participate before the next major federal elections. As the Senate has taken up the SAVE America Act, Trump has threatened to withhold his signature from other legislation until Congress passes the Act and suggested he would return to executive action if Congress does not deliver.

Noncitizen Voting is Already Illegal

Noncitizen voting in elections is already illegal. Federal law prohibits it, and violators can face serious consequences. Furthermore, federal law also already requires people registering to vote to attest, under penalty of perjury, that they are U.S. citizens. In other words, this is not an area where the law is silent. It already addresses the issue, while avoiding unnecessary barriers to the ballot. So when lawmakers present these proposals as if they are finally closing a major loophole, this is for mere showmanship. Reports have repeatedly shown that if illegal voting by noncitizens does happen, it is rare. In Georgia, officials found 1,634 attempted registrations by potential noncitizens over a 25-year period, with none successfully registered after review. That means 0 percent of those attempts resulted in a completed registration. In Pennsylvania, officials said a motor vehicle glitch may have led to 544 ballots cast by noncitizens over an 18-year period and out of more than 93 million ballots cast. That works out to roughly 0.0006 percent of ballots cast during that period. Those figures show that existing safeguards are already catching ineligible registrations, when they do occur.

The false narrative around illegal voting does not come from evidence. It is a fabricated narrative that is being repeated so that people will start to believe it. If people are told often enough that noncitizen voting is rampant, measures that burden eligible voters can be framed as a reasonable response. A manufactured problem should not become the basis for real barriers to participation. The SAVE America Act would disenfranchise real voters to purportedly address an imaginary problem.

What These Bills Actually Do

At the center of these proposals is a documentary proof-of-citizenship requirement, which means people would have to show papers proving they are citizens in order to register to vote in federal elections. It is a “show your papers” approach to voting, one built on arbitrary documentation demands that are likely to confuse eligible voters as much as they burden them. Many people may have identification that establishes who they are, but not the specific records the law would require to prove citizenship, leaving them to navigate a system where the rules are narrow, the stakes are high, and the confusion itself can become a barrier.

Research has shown that 21.3 million voting-age U.S. citizens do not have documentary proof of citizenship readily available, and that citizens of color are more likely to lack ready access to those documents. These proposals also pair that requirement with stricter voter ID rules, limits on mail voting, penalties for election officials who accept registrations without the required documentation, and pressure on states to send voter rolls through the federal SAVE database for citizenship checks.

A “show your papers” system would burden many different communities. It would affect married women and those whose current names do not match their birth certificates, rural voters far from replacement-record offices, and older voters without easy access to original documents. It would also create barriers for naturalized citizens who would have to produce citizenship records years later, Native voters whose documentation may not fit neatly into federal paperwork rules, voters with disabilities, and low-income voters for whom time off work, transportation, or replacement fees are real obstacles.

The Racial Justice Stakes

These burdens will fall especially hard on Black and Brown communities. In a country where access to transportation, flexible work schedules, paid leave, stable housing, internet service, nearby government offices, and affordable replacement records is already unequal, new documentation requirements will be most damaging where there is least room for delay, added cost, or bureaucratic error. That pattern should sound familiar: from poll taxes to literacy tests, barriers to the ballot have long been defended in the name of order and fairness while operating to exclude Black and Brown voters in practice. Today’s proof of citizenship requirements follow that same logic, shifting the strain of administering fair elections from the government onto individual voters and then treating the resulting barrier to the ballot as necessary. That is why the stakes here are not just administrative. They are democratic, racial, and real.

This Fight Is Bigger Than One Bill

The most important thing to understand about the SAVE America Act is that it is not the whole story. These ideas have been disproved and beaten before. The SAVE America Act is the next chapter in a larger campaign to narrow democratic participation and make exclusion easier to defend. In a democracy, the legitimacy of the system depends on eligible voters being able to participate. That means we cannot treat the disenfranchisement of millions of eligible voters as an acceptable tradeoff for addressing an exceedingly rare problem. A just society does not make access to the ballot depend on who has the right paperwork at the right moment. That is why the response to this effort cannot end with opposing a single bill. It will take people paying attention in their communities, contacting elected officials, supporting organizations fighting to protect voting rights, and helping others understand what these proposals would do in practice. It will take voices across the country pushing back against misinformation and making clear that access to the ballot cannot depend on paperwork, privilege, or suspicion.

1. Kobach’s Documentary Proof-of-Citizenship Law Heads to Trial | American Civil Liberties Union

2. https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trump-says-will-not-sign-other-legislation-until-voter-act-bill-is-passed-by-2026-03-08/

3. 18 U.S. Code § 1015 - Naturalization, citizenship or alien registry | U.S. Code | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute.

4. Citizenship Audit Finds 1,634 Noncitizens Attempted to Register to Vote | Georgia Secretary of State

5. Pennsylvania finds 544 possibly illegal ballots since 2000 | AP News

6. Millions of Americans Don’t Have Documents Proving Their Citizenship Readily Available | Brennan Center for Justice

The five-year mark of the January 6 attack on the United States Capitol has come and gone, still with no real accountability for those responsible, and with a palpable sense of national fatigue. For many Americans, the terror of that day has receded into the fog of constant political noise and upheaval, overtaken by new realities, including an ever-weakening economy, threats of more National Guard deployments, ICE raids tearing families and communities apart, and skyrocketing healthcare costs. There’s a false narrative that the story of the January 6 insurrection is settled, and we should simply move on because those responsible for inciting violence to overturn the votes of millions will never be brought to justice.

This exhaustion is understandable; however, it is a luxury that our democracy cannot afford.

To succumb to numbness is to profoundly misunderstand how much remains at stake. Ultimately, indifference leads to an abandonment of the foundational principle that no one is above the law – including presidents.

As the leader of a legacy civil rights organization representing Capitol police officers who were assaulted and traumatized by the attacks, I know that lack of accountability for violation of civil rights fuels impunity. So, we have a responsibility to ensure that justice is served. That is why my organization continues to litigate Smith v. Trump, a federal civil rights case against those responsible for the insurrection.

The lives of hundreds of Capitol Hill staffers and elected officials were threatened on January 6. At least 140 law enforcement officers were sprayed with chemicals, beaten with poles, and crushed in doorways. Five officers died in connection with the attack, and many more suffered permanent disabilities. Their sacrifices ensured that the voices of the American people—including Black voters and other historically marginalized communities—were not silenced by a violent attack that threatened to undo the results of the 2020 presidential election and erode the fabric of our democracy.

But some want to pretend that it never happened.

Dozens of people were prosecuted, convicted, and sentenced for their roles in the insurrection. But on his first day back in office, President Trump issued a blanket pardon for nearly 1,600 people convicted of federal crimes related to the attack on the Capitol, including those who engaged in extreme physical violence. With a stroke of pen, he released the leaders of the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers from prison, cutting off an important pathway to accountability.

This betrayal of justice is compounded by a betrayal of politics, memory, and truth. For over 1,000 days, the House of Representatives issued a symbolic insult by defying federal law requiring a plaque to honor the fallen officers. Furthermore, Congress has failed to secure testimony from key witnesses who defied subpoenas from the January 6 Committee. This obstructive silence, enabled by inaction, denies the American people a full accounting and perpetuates the injustice.

And on the fifth anniversary this week, dozens of January 6 rioters returned to the scene of their crime to reminisce about the mayhem they caused and how they got away with it. They demanded retribution, convinced that they had been wronged and that their pardons weren’t enough. The White House published a webpage, replete with lies, attempting to whitewash the truth and shift the narrative and the blame for the insurrection to the Capitol Police.

So, there is nothing in place to stop the same thing from happening again when enough of the wrong people see election results they don’t like. That’s why Trump, the Proud Boys, and the other defendants in our civil case must be held accountable for their actions to ensure such violence never happens again.

The central, searing question laid bare by the events of January 6, 2021, is whether our constitutional order is resilient enough to withstand coordinated attacks and the subsequent demand for immunity by its orchestrators. If the clear lines outlined in our Constitution, like the peaceful transfer of power and integrity of the electoral process, can be wiped out with impunity, the democratic foundation of the United States will become negotiable and vulnerable to any current or future leaders who prefer to lead with force.

Yes, the national weariness is real. But fatigue cannot mean absolution without consequence.

The story of January 6 is still being written, and we have the power to change how this story is told and how it ends. We ask every American, regardless of party affiliation and politics, to push past the exhaustion and to continue to call for accountability. Caring about January 6 today is not about relitigating the past. It is about insisting on a future where the Constitution remains the law of the land, where violence is met with consequence, and where public servants who embody courage to protect the votes of thousands of Americans are honored. Our fight continues because it must, for the sake of all Americans and for the preservation of our democracy for generations to come.