Comparing Police Reform Bills: the Justice in Policing Act and the JUSTICE Act
Legal Sidebari
Comparing Police Reform Bills: the Justice in
Policing Act and the JUSTICE Act
Updated July 6, 2020
On May 25, 2020, George Floyd died in the custody of the Minneapolis police after an officer pressed his
knee into Floyd’s neck while restraining him. That incident, others like it, and subsequent nationwide
protests have sparked heightened interest in the federal government’s ability to prevent and remedy police
misconduct, especial y the use of excessive force against people of color. The events of May and June
2020 have prompted action by the Executive Branch and legislative proposals in both houses of Congress.
On June 16, 2020, President Donald Trump issued an Executive Order on Safe Policing for Safe
Communities. On June 8, 2020, Members of the House of Representatives, led by the Congressional
Black Caucus, introduced the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act of 2020 (Justice in Policing Act), and
on June 17, 2020, Senate Republicans unveiled the Just and Unifying Solutions To Invigorate
Communities Everywhere Act of 2020 (JUSTICE Act). A previous Legal Sidebar briefly summarized the
Executive Order and both bil s, along with other recent reform proposals. This Legal Sidebar provides a
comparison of the Justice in Policing Act and the JUSTICE Act. While this Sidebar does not purport to
detail every provision of the two bil s exhaustively, it analyzes key similarities and differences that are
most relevant when evaluating the two proposals. The Sidebar first outlines subject matters that both bil s
cover, detailing similarities and differences between each bil on those subjects. It concludes by
discussing provisions unique to each bil . This Sidebar was updated on July 6, 2020, and reflects
amendments to each bil up to that date.
Subjects Covered by Both Bills
This section outlines subjects addressed by both the Justice in Policing Act and the JUSTICE Act. In
addition to addressing some of the same topics, the two bil s are broadly similar in that many of their
provisions regulating state and local law enforcement would rely on Congress’s power under the
Spending Clause to require states or state and local law enforcement agencies that accept federal funding
to implement certain policies as a condition of the grant. The primary sources of federal funding to which
the bil s would attach conditions are grants under the Byrne JAG program and the COPS grant program.
In general, whenever either bil would impose an obligation on state or local governments who accept
federal funds, funding recipients who fail to comply with such obligations would become ineligible for
some or al funding from the specified sources. However, various provisions of both bil s would directly
regulate federal and even state and local law enforcement officers.
Congressional Research Service
https://crsreports.congress.gov
LSB10498
CRS Legal Sidebar
Prepared for Members and
Committees of Congress
Congressional Research Service
2
Limitations on chokeholds and other uses of force. Both the Justice in Policing Act and the JUSTICE
Act include provisions designed to limit the use of chokeholds by federal, state, and local law
enforcement, though the two statutes differ in their breadth and approach.
Section 363 of the Justice in Policing Act would specifical y govern chokeholds or
carotid holds, defined as “the application of any pressure to the throat or windpipe, the
use of maneuvers that restrict blood or oxygen flow to the brain, or carotid artery
restraints that prevent or hinder breathing or reduce intake of air.” That section of the bil
would require states or localities that receive certain federal funding to enact laws
banning all uses of chokeholds and carotid holds by law enforcement officers. As
discussed further below, Section 363 would also amend 18 U.S.C. § 242 to criminalize
the use of these maneuvers based on race.
Section 364 of the Justice in Policing Act, entitled the PEACE Act, would prohibit federal
law enforcement officers from using chokeholds or carotid holds unless the conditions for
deadly force (discussed further below) are met.
The JUSTICE Act would apply to chokeholds, defined as “a physical maneuver that
restricts an individual’s ability to breathe for the purposes of incapacitation.” Section 105
of the JUSTICE Act would require states and local governments that receive certain
federal funding to develop law enforcement agency policies “prohibit[ing] the use of
chokeholds except when deadly force is authorized.” That section would also require the
Attorney General to develop such a policy at the federal level for federal law enforcement
agencies.
With respect to the use of force more broadly, the PEACE ACT, Section 364 of the
Justice in Policing Act, would al ow federal law enforcement officers to use:
deadly force (defined as “that force which a reasonable person would consider
likely to cause death or serious bodily harm,” specifical y including chokeholds
and carotid holds, the use of a gun, or multiple discharges of a taser) only as a
last resort to prevent imminent death or serious bodily injury when there is no
substantial risk of injury to a third person and reasonable alternatives to the use
of deadly force have been exhausted;
“less lethal” force (defined as “any degree of force that is not likely to cause
death or serious bodily injury”) only if such force is “necessary and proportional”
to effect an arrest supported by probable cause, and reasonable alternatives to the
use of less lethal force have been exhausted.
The PEACE Act would require federal officers to identify themselves and issue certain
verbal warnings to a suspect prior to the use of any force, when feasible. Failure to abide
by applicable standards concerning the use of force would limit the ability of a federal
law enforcement officer charged with murder or manslaughter to argue that a kil ing was
justified. The section also directs the Attorney General to issue guidance and provide
training to federal law enforcement officials on use of force more general y. Final y, this
section would condition certain federal grants to states, municipalities, and Indian Tribes
on recipients’ enacting laws to establish comparable use of force standards.
The JUSTICE Act does not contain a comparable provision restricting the use of deadly
or less-lethal force more broadly but, as discussed below, would require reporting of
incidents involving law enforcement uses of force.
No-knock warrants. Both bil s seek to address concerns related to the use of no-knock warrants, but the
Justice in Policing Act would impose or encourage direct legal limits on the practice, while the JUSTICE
Act would instead seek to gather data on the use of no-knock warrants.
Congressional Research Service
3
Section 362 of the Justice in Policing Act would ban no-knock warrants in drug cases at
the federal level. The section would also condition certain federal funding upon states and
localities enacting laws prohibiting the use of no-knock warrants in similar drug cases.
The JUSTICE Act does not contain a comparable provision banning no-knock warrants
but, as discussed below, would require reporting on their use.
Body cameras. Both bil s would seek to increase the use of body-worn cameras by state and local law
enforcement officers. The Justice in Policing Act would additional y require the use of body cameras and
in-vehicle video recording by federal law enforcement officers.
Title III, Subtitle C of the Justice in Policing Act would require certain federal law
enforcement officers to wear body cameras and use such cameras in responding to any
cal for service, or at the initiation of any “law enforcement or investigative stop
. . . between a Federal law enforcement officer and a member of the public.” The bil
contains certain exceptions, such as when an immediate threat to the officer’s life or
safety makes activating the camera impossible or dangerous, or when recording is
discontinued at the request of a person seeking to remain anonymous. Agencies would be
required to retain camera footage for at least six months and al ow inspection by certain
interested parties. Officers who fail to comply with the bil ’s requirements could be
subject to disciplinary proceedings, and lack of footage could result in evidentiary
presumptions against the government in civil and criminal cases. This subtitle would also
require instal ation and use of video recording equipment in al federal patrol vehicles.
Part II of Subtitle C of the Justice in Policing Act, the Police CAMERA Act of 2020,
would provide federal grants to expand the use of body cameras by state, local, and tribal
law enforcement officers, subject to certain requirements related to safety, privacy, data
retention, and reporting.
Title II of the JUSTICE Act would provide grants to state, local, and tribal government
agencies to support the use of body-worn cameras by law enforcement officials. Funding
recipients would be required to provide “assurances” that they have specified policies and
procedures in place, including requiring certain training and imposing discipline on
officers who fail to use cameras as required.
Unlike the Justice in Policing Act, the JUSTICE Act would not require the use of body
cameras or cameras in patrol vehicles by federal law enforcement officers.
Law enforcement misconduct and disciplinary records. Both bil s contain provisions designed to
enhance transparency concerning records of misconduct by law enforcement officers.
Sections 201 and 202 of the Justice in Policing Act would create a National Police
Misconduct Registry maintained by the Department of Justice (DOJ). The publicly
available registry would contain information including complaints (particularly those
involving use of force or racial profiling), discipline records, and termination records for
al federal, state, and local law enforcement officers. The bil would require states that
receive certain federal funding to report such information on behalf of each law
enforcement agency within the state. It would also require funding recipients to
demonstrate that “al law enforcement officers of the State or other jurisdiction have
completed al State certification requirements.”
Title III of the JUSTICE Act would require state and local governments that receive
certain federal funding to “maintain a system for sharing disciplinary records of law
enforcement officers” that meets certain specifications. The system would be accessible
to other law enforcement agencies, and individual officers would have the ability to
Congressional Research Service
4
access their own records and submit related information. Before hiring any law
enforcement officer, covered agencies would be required to search the system and review
any records related to that officer.
Training, best practices, and accreditation. Both bil s seek to establish best practices for law
enforcement officers and train officers in areas such as use of force and racial bias. Both bil s would also
create standards to accredit or otherwise identify law enforcement agencies that meet certain standards.
Subtitle B of Title I of the Justice in Policing Act, the Law Enforcement Trust and
Integrity Act of 2020, would require the Attorney General to develop uniform standards
for accreditation of law enforcement agencies with respect to, among other areas, use of
force procedures, stop and search procedures, training, and early warning systems. This
subtitle would direct the Attorney General to make policies to encourage law enforcement
agencies to pursue accreditation and to al ocate DOJ discretionary funding only to states
and municipalities that require agencies to gain and maintain accreditation. It would also
authorize grants to community-based organizations to study and implement effective
standards and programs for law enforcement agencies.
Section 361 of the Justice in Policing Act would mandate training for federal law
enforcement officers on racial profiling, implicit bias, and the duty to intervene when
another officer is using excessive force. This section would also mandate that certain
federal grant recipients require state and local law enforcement officers within their
jurisdictions to complete such training.
Title VI of the JUSTICE Act would direct the Attorney General to develop training on
alternatives to use of force, tactics for de-escalation, responding to behavioral health
crises, and duty to intervene when another officer uses excessive force. This title would
require the Attorney General to publish information about state and local law
enforcement agencies that employ officers who have completed such training.
Subtitle B of Title VIII of the JUSTICE Act would provide authorization and funding for
the Director of the National Museum of African American History and Culture to develop
and disseminate an educational curriculum for law enforcement personnel or candidates
on the history of racism in the United States.
Reporting on use of force and other matters. Multiple provisions of both bil s would facilitate federal
data collection and oversight related to police reform.
Section 117 of the Justice in Policing Act would establish a DOJ Task Force on Law
Enforcement Oversight to coordinate the detection and referral of complaints regarding
incidents of al eged law enforcement misconduct.
Section 118 of the Justice in Policing Act would require federal law enforcement
agencies, and state, local, and tribal law enforcement agencies that receive certain federal
funding, to report on various practices including stops, searches, and uses of deadly force.
Data on each covered practice would be broken down based on the race, ethnicity, age,
and gender of the officers and members of the public involved in each incident.
Title II, Subtitle B of the Justice in Policing Act, the PRIDE Act, would require recipients
of certain federal funding to report to the Attorney General information about a broad
range of incidents related to the use of force by and against law enforcement officers,
including shootings, deaths in custody, and “any incident involving the death or arrest of
a law enforcement officer.” The reports would include various demographic information
of the members of the public involved in such incidents. This subtitle would explicitly
Congressional Research Service
5
require reporting of incidents involving school resource officers. The bil would direct the
Attorney General to issue a public report containing data collected under this section.
Section 101 of the JUSTICE Act, the George Floyd and Walter Scott Notification Act,
would require recipients of certain federal funding to report to the federal government
information related to law enforcement uses of force involving death, serious injury, or
use of a firearm; shootings of officers by civilians; and other incidents leading to the
death or serious injury of an officer.
Section 102 of the JUSTICE Act, the Breonna Taylor Notification Act, would require
federal funding recipients to report to the federal government information related to law
enforcement uses of no-knock warrants. This section would also direct the Attorney
General to publish an annual report on the use of no-knock warrants in closed
investigations by federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies.
Sexual acts under color of law. Both bil s include provisions based on the Closing the Law Enforcement
Consent Loophole Act of 2019.
Title IV of the Justice in Policing Act and Title X of the JUSTICE Act use slightly
different wording, but both would appear to impose criminal liability when a person
“acting under color of law, knowingly engages in a sexual act” with an individual in
federal custody. A violation of either provision would be punishable by a fine and/or up to
fifteen years in prison.
Title IV of the Justice in Policing Act would require recipients of certain federal funds to
enact laws making it a criminal offense “for any person acting under color of law of the
State or unit of local government to engage in a sexual act with an individual” in custody.
Title X of the JUSTICE Act would authorize the Attorney General to make grants to
states, municipalities, and Indian Tribes that enact similar laws.
Law enforcement demographics. Both bil s contain provisions designed to promote hiring of law
enforcement officers who live in or demographical y represent the communities they serve.
Section 366 of the Justice in Policing Act would, among other things, authorize the use of
certain federal funds to recruit law enforcement officers who live in or are wil ing to
relocate to communities “where there are poor or fragmented relationships between
police and residents of the community, or where there are high incidents of crime.”
Section 801 of the JUSTICE Act would authorize the use of certain federal grant funding
“for a law enforcement agency that has a substantial y different racial and ethnic
demographic makeup than the community served by the agency, to hire recruiters and
enroll law enforcement officer candidates in law enforcement academies to become
career law enforcement officers who have racial and ethnic demographic characteristics
similar to the community.”
Provisions Unique to the Justice in Policing Act
Criminal liability for civil rights violations. As discussed in more detail in this Sidebar, a provision of
the federal criminal code, 18 U.S.C. § 242 (Section 242), makes it a crime for a government actor such as
a law enforcement officer to wil fully deprive a person of rights under the Constitution or federal law, or
to impose different punishments based on a person’s race.
Section 101 of the Justice in Policing Act would amend Section 242 to change the mental
state required for conviction from “wil fully” to the less stringent “knowingly or
Congressional Research Service
6
recklessly.’’ This section would also remove the possibility of a death sentence for
violating Section 242.
Section 363 of the Act would amend Section 242 to provide that “the application of any
pressure to the throat or windpipe, use of maneuvers that restrict blood or oxygen flow to
the brain, or carotid artery restraints which prevent or hinder breathing or reduce intake
of air” is a punishment that may not be imposed based on race.
Qualified immunity. As discussed in this Sidebar, the judicial y created doctrine of qualified immunity
provides that government officials performing discretionary functions general y may not be sued for such
actions unless they violate “clearly established” law.
Section 102 of the Justice in Policing Act would limit qualified immunity for state and
local law enforcement officers in suits under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and for federal law
enforcement officers “in any action under any source of law,” providing that it is not a
defense to liability if a defendant believed in good faith that his or her conduct was lawful
or that the rights the defendant al egedly infringed were not clearly established.
Civil rights investigations. As discussed in this Sidebar, DOJ has the authority under 34 U.S.C. § 12601
(Section 12601) to investigate any “pattern or practice” of constitutional violations by law enforcement
agencies and sue to remedy such violations.
Section 103 of the Justice in Policing Act would seek to enhance federal investigations
into patterns or practices of law enforcement misconduct by granting subpoena power to
DOJ under Section 12601 and authorizing state attorneys general to bring suit based on
violations of that provision. This section would also provide federal grant funding to
enhance state and local investigations into potential patterns and practices of
constitutional violations. In addition, this section would prohibit recipients of certain
federal funds from providing such funds to local law enforcement agencies that enter into
contracts, including collective bargaining agreements, that “would prevent the Attorney
General from seeking or enforcing equitable or declaratory relief against a law
enforcement agency engaging in a pattern or practice of unconstitutional misconduct” or
conflict with any consent decree.
Use of force investigations. States and state and local law enforcement agencies may also investigate
potential law enforcement misconduct. However, some commentators worry that close relationships
between law enforcement officers and prosecutors may hinder investigations and prosecutions of law
enforcement misconduct.
Section 104 of the Justice in Policing Act would provide federal grant funding to enhance
independent investigations into uses of deadly force by state, local, and tribal law
enforcement officers.
Racial profiling. Title III, Subtitle A of the Justice in Policing Act, the End Racial and Religious Profiling
Act, would seek to prevent and remedy racial profiling by law enforcement.
Part I of this subtitle would prohibit racial profiling by federal, state, local, and tribal law
enforcement. The bil would define racial profiling as “a law enforcement agent or
agency relying, to any degree, on actual or perceived race, ethnicity, national origin,
religion, gender, gender identity, or sexual orientation” in deciding the scope and
substance of law enforcement activities. To enforce this prohibition, the act would
authorize civil suits for declaratory or injunctive relief by the DOJ or affected individuals.
It would suffice to show a violation of the bil if “spontaneous investigatory activities of
Congressional Research Service
7
law enforcement agents in a jurisdiction have had a disparate impact” on a covered
group.
Part II would require federal law enforcement agencies to establish policies to help
eliminate racial profiling.
The remainder of Title III, Subtitle A would provide funding for training of state and local
police and data collection related to racial profiling, and require the Attorney General to
make annual reports to Congress on racial profiling by law enforcement agencies.
Restrictions on transfer of military equipment. Under a federal program known as the 1033 Program,
the federal government transfers excess military equipment to state and local law enforcement agencies.
Section 365 of the Justice in Policing Act, the Stop Militarizing Law Enforcement Act,
would limit the transfer of certain military-grade equipment (primarily weapons and
vehicles designed for combat) to state and local law enforcement.
Provisions Unique to the JUSTICE Act
New criminal offense. The JUSTICE Act would create a new criminal offense related to law enforcement
oversight and reform.
Section 106 of the JUSTICE Act would create a new criminal offense of “knowingly and
wil fully falsify[ing] a report . . . in furtherance of the deprivation of any rights,
privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United
States where death or serious bodily injury . . . occurs.” The penalty for violating this
provision would be a fine and/or imprisonment for up to twenty years.
Anti-lynching provisions. The JUSTICE Act incorporates an anti-lynching provision drawn from the
Justice for Victims of Lynching Act.
Title IV of the JUSTICE Act, entitled the Justice for Victims of Lynching Act, would
create a new section of the federal criminal code entitled “Lynching.” The provision
would criminalize conspiring to violate certain federal civil rights or hate crime statutes
(18 U.S.C. §§ 245, 247, or 249 or 42 U.S.C. § 3631). Violations would be punishable by
a fine and/or up to ten years in prison (or longer if authorized by the underlying statute
that the defendant conspired to violate).
The version of the Justice in Policing Act introduced in the House on June 8, 2020
included an anti-lynching provision substantively identical to the one in the JUSTICE
Act. That provision, referred to as both the Justice for Victims of Lynching Act and the
Emmett Til Anti-Lynching Act, was not included in the version of the Justice in Policing
Act that passed the house on June 25, 2020.
Exploratory commissions. The JUSTICE Act would create two commissions to investigate issues and
propose reforms in areas related to law enforcement oversight.
Title V would create a Commission on the Social Status of Black Men and Boys to
“conduct a systematic study of the conditions affecting Black men and boys, including
homicide rates, arrest and incarceration rates, poverty, violence, fatherhood, mentorship,
drug abuse, death rates, disparate income and wealth levels, school performance in al
grade levels including postsecondary education and college, and health issues.”
Composed of 19 members, including Members of Congress and individuals appointed by
Congress, the President, and certain executive branch officials, the Commission would
document trends in these areas and propose measures to address any issues it recorded.
Congressional Research Service
8
Title VII would establish a temporary National Criminal Justice Commission to
“undertake a comprehensive review of the criminal justice system,” disseminate findings,
and propose reforms. The President and the leader of the Senate would each appoint a co-
chair of the 14-person Commission, and each co-chair would appoint six additional
members, in consultation with certain Members of Congress.
Title IX would direct the National Criminal Justice Commission to develop best practices
related to law enforcement oversight. It would also direct the Commission to conduct
studies on state and local use of force review boards; officer training on issues related to
mental health, homelessness, and addiction; and improving accountability for DOJ
grants.
Author Information
Joanna R. Lampe
Legislative Attorney
Disclaimer
This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan shared staff
to congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and under the direction of
Congress. Information in a CRS Report should not be relied upon for purposes other than public understanding of
information that has been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in connection with CRS’s institutional role.
CRS Reports, as a work of the United States Government, are not subject to copyright protection in the United
States. Any CRS Report may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without permission from CRS. However,
as a CRS Report may include copyrighted images or material from a third party, you may need to obtain the
permission of the copyright holder if you wish to copy or otherwise use copyrighted material.
LSB10498 · VERSION 3 · UPDATED