The House Judiciary Committee heard an initial presentation on HR 6, a resolution introduced by Rep. Christine Perez and co‑sponsors, that condemns judicial use of disparate‑impact analysis.

Perez described the resolution as a statement opposing the doctrine, which the sponsors characterize as allowing courts to find liability where a facially neutral rule yields unequal outcomes. She said the measure grew from constituent concerns and recent litigation where plaintiffs claimed neutral qualifications produced adverse effects in particular communities.

Opponents told the committee the disparate‑impact doctrine is a longstanding legal tool used to address policies that produce unequal results even when they lack explicit discriminatory intent. A witness cited the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2015 decision in Texas Department of Housing & Community Affairs v. Inclusive Communities Project as a confirmation that disparate‑impact claims are cognizable under federal law.

Another witness urged the committee to avoid framing scientific and statistical analysis as illegitimate, and said the resolution’s draft language overstated the case for discarding a body of precedent used to root out hidden barriers.

Ending: The committee closed the hearing without action on HR 6. Members signaled they had received briefing materials and that the resolution would be discussed further in committee, where sponsors and critics could provide additional legal detail and proposed edits.