Stop Hate Crimes Act of 2025
Key claim: The Stop Hate Crimes Act of 2025 would make a federal hate crime if a protected characteristic is merely a contributory motivating factor, replacing the stricter but-for causation standard courts have applied since 2014.
Abstract
(HR4187 · 119th Congress) Stop Hate Crimes Act of 2025 This bill lowers the standard for establishing that a defendant’s conduct constitutes a federal hate crime offense. Currently, federal law prohibits willfully causing bodily injury or using a dangerous weapon to attempt to do so because of the actual or perceived protected characteristic (e.g., race or religion) of any person. In a prosecution for a hate crime offense, the government must establish that the defendant committed prohibited conduct because of a specific protected characteristic. The phrase because of is not defined. However, since 2014, courts have generally held that because of relates to causation and requires the government to establish but-for causation. For example, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit held in United States v. Miller that in a prosecution for a hate crime offense, the phrase because of required the government to establish that but for the religion of the victims, the defendants would not have committed the assaults. This bill replaces the because of standard, which relates to causation, with a new standard related to motive. Under the new standard, willfully causing bodily injury or using a dangerous weapon to attempt to do so is a hate crime offense if the actual or perceived protected characteristic of any person is a contributory motivating factor in the offense. Latest action (2025-06-26): Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Why this matters
Federal hate-crime prosecutions currently require proof that bias against a protected characteristic was the but-for cause of the offense, a demanding mens rea standard that has limited convictions since courts imported the Burrage-line causation rule to § 249 around 2014. Shifting to a contributory-motivating-factor test would materially lower the government’s burden and likely broaden the range of bias-motivated conduct reachable under federal law, with practical consequences for victims across race, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, gender identity, and disability categories. The change is contested: supporters see it as closing an evidentiary gap in cases with mixed motives, while critics argue it weakens the causation link traditionally required in criminal law.