250How's It Going?America's 250-year progress report · federal data, same yardstick
← Everyday Life
Everyday Life · Question 5

Can I be who I am without being punished?

Civil liberties, voting access, religious freedom, and discrimination protections, by race, gender, LGBTQ+, religion, and immigration status.

This is the most contested section, so the rule is strict: law changes are facts; their effects are labeled correlation; and religious freedom is shown from both directions. The timelines are presented neutrally, you judge.

Have LGBTQ+ Americans gained or lost legal protection?

Mostly gained over three decades, from DOMA (1996) to nationwide marriage equality (2015) and workplace protection (2020), with a recent wave of state-level restrictions.

  1. 1996
    Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) signed, federal law defines marriage as man+woman
    Restricted access
  2. 2003
    Lawrence v. Texas, SCOTUS strikes down sodomy laws
    Expanded access
  3. 2010
    Don't Ask Don't Tell repealed
    Expanded access
  4. 2013
    United States v. Windsor, SCOTUS strikes down Section 3 of DOMA
    Expanded access
  5. 2015
    Obergefell v. Hodges, nationwide marriage equality
    Expanded access
  6. 2020
    Bostock v. Clayton County, SCOTUS rules Title VII protects LGBTQ+ workers from employment discrimination
    Expanded access
  7. 2022
    Respect for Marriage Act signed, codifies federal recognition of same-sex marriage
    Expanded access
  8. 2025
    Multiple states introduce bills restricting gender-affirming care for minors, bathroom access, and drag performances
    Restricted access
Measured outcomeSource: Federal legislation / SCOTUS decisions

Is religious freedom expanding, and whose?

Courts have increasingly favored free-exercise claims since around 2019. Shown here from both sides: free exercise AND church/state separation.

  1. 1993
    Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) signed
    Free-exercise lean
  2. 2005
    Van Orden v. Perry, Ten Commandments display on state Capitol grounds permitted
    Free-exercise lean
  3. 2005
    McCreary County v. ACLU, Ten Commandments display in courthouses unconstitutional
    Church/state separation lean
  4. 2014
    Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, closely held corporations can have religious exemptions from ACA contraceptive mandate
    Free-exercise lean
  5. 2019
    American Legion v. American Humanist Association, Bladensburg Peace Cross on public land can stand
    Free-exercise lean
  6. 2022
    Kennedy v. Bremerton, public school football coach can pray on field
    Free-exercise lean
  7. 2022
    Carson v. Makin, states cannot exclude religious schools from public tuition programs
    Free-exercise lean
  8. 2024
    Louisiana mandates Ten Commandments displays in public school classrooms (challenged in court)
    Free-exercise lean

MANDATORY: pair each ruling so neither side is favored. Present factually.

Recent rulings have strongly favored free-exercise claims. Present this factual trend without editorializing, the data speaks. Note that 'separation' rulings have become less common at SCOTUS level since ~2019.

Measured outcomeSource: Federal courts / SCOTUS

Is it getting easier or harder to vote?

Both, depending on the state. Since the 2013 Shelby County ruling, 29+ states passed 100+ restrictive laws, while many others expanded mail and early voting.

  1. 2013
    Shelby County v. Holder, SCOTUS guts VRA preclearance
    Restricted access
  2. 2018
    Florida Amendment 4 restores voting rights for 1.4M former felons
    Expanded access
  3. 2019
    Florida SB 7066 adds fines/fees requirement to Amendment 4, effectively re-restricting
    Restricted access
  4. 2021
    Georgia SB 202 (post-2020 election), new ID requirements, limits on drop boxes, criminalizes giving water to voters in line
    Restricted access
  5. 2021
    Texas SB 1, bans 24-hour voting, drive-through voting, limits mail ballots
    Restricted access

Brennan Center categorizes laws as restrictive or expansive. Key inflection: Shelby County v. Holder (2013) gutted VRA Section 5 preclearance, leading to a wave of new voting restrictions in previously covered states.

Report the law changes as measured facts. Their effect on turnout is correlation, not proven causation, keep separate. Brennan Center's categorization is sometimes contested by conservatives who argue voter ID laws are 'election integrity' not 'restriction.'

Measured outcomeSource: Brennan Center for Justice annual reports on voting laws

Are hate crimes rising?

Reported hate crimes have risen, but the FBI's count is voluntary and the reporting agencies change yearly, so treat the numbers as a floor, not a precise trend.

CRITICAL CAVEAT: FBI hate crime data has a massive reporting problem. In 2021, FBI transitioned from UCR to NIBRS, and many agencies (including NYPD and LAPD) didn't report, causing a sharp artificial drop. By 2023, reporting improved but is still incomplete. Trend comparisons must account for changing agency participation.

These numbers are FLOOR estimates, actual hate crimes are significantly higher than reported. The 2021 data disruption makes pre/post comparisons unreliable without adjusting for agency count. Flag this prominently.

Measured outcomeSource: FBI Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) / National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS)

Is the government still enforcing civil-rights law?

It depends heavily on the administration. Under Trump II the DOJ Civil Rights Division shifted its mission and ~70% of its attorneys left by mid-2025, a measurably different posture from any prior administration.

Present this factually. The enforcement shift under Trump II is measurably different from any prior administration including Trump I. The data shows: cases dropped, staff departed, mission redefined. Whether this is 'restoring equality' (administration's framing) or 'dismantling civil rights enforcement' (critics' framing) depends on perspective, show both framings and let the reader decide based on the measurable changes.

DOJ does not publish a clean annual table of total enforcement actions. What IS trackable: removal totals by era, staffing changes, priority shifts, and specific actions dropped or initiated.

Measured outcomeSource: DOJ Civil Rights Division publications, NPR, NBC News, Bloomberg Law, The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights (civilrights.org/trump-rollbacks)

Who bears the cost of immigration enforcement?

Enforcement is bipartisan, Obama deported more people than any president before him. The differences are in priorities, methods, and the collateral cost to the ~6.3 million citizens living with an unauthorized family member.

Immigration enforcement is bipartisan, Obama deported more people than any president before him. The difference is in priorities (criminals vs. everyone), methods (formal removals vs. returns), and collateral impact (family separation, mixed-status families). Present all presidents' records with the same scrutiny.

Key distinction: 'removals' (formal deportation with legal consequences for reentry) vs. 'returns' (voluntary departure, no lasting legal consequence). Obama shifted from returns to removals, making his numbers look higher. Trump II claims 605,000 deportations in first 11 months.

Measured outcomeSource: DHS Yearbook of Immigration Statistics, DHS OHSS monthly tables, Migration Policy Institute, CIS Immigration Data Portal
How we measure this & our sources →