2 versions

RefinementWhat changed in REPORTED IN HOUSEcompared with INTRODUCED IN HOUSE (Sep 8, 2025)

A small refinement. The short title of the bill was changed from "Keep Violent Criminals Off Our Streets Act" in v1 to "No Federal Funds for Cashless Bail Act" in v2, with a corresponding update in the operative text. A minor technical clarification was also made to an amendment instruction, enhancing precision without altering the substantive outcome.

H.R. 5213119th CongressIntroduced Sep 8, 2025

No Federal Funds for Cashless Bail Act

Reported To HouseCrime and Law EnforcementMajor

View bill text

Sponsor: Rep. Stefanik, Elise M. [R-NY-21]
Committees: Judiciary Committee (primary)
Last action: May 4, 2026

Bottom line

The bill ties federal criminal justice funding to state and local cash bail policies for serious offenses, aiming to reverse "cashless bail" reforms by making non-compliant jurisdictions ineligible for grants.

What it actually does

This bill prohibits states and local governments from receiving Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grants (JAG) if they have policies that substantially limit the use of cash bail for individuals charged with "covered offenses," which include violent, sexual, and public disorder crimes. It aims to incentivize jurisdictions to maintain cash bail options for serious offenses by linking federal grant eligibility to their bail policies, effective for fiscal years beginning after its enactment.

Proponents argue

Proponents argue that limiting cash bail for serious offenses undermines public safety by allowing dangerous individuals to be released without financial incentive to return to court, potentially leading to increased crime rates. They contend that cash bail serves as a crucial tool to ensure accountability and protect communities, and that federal funds should not support jurisdictions that compromise these principles, thereby restoring order and safety.

Opponents contend

Opponents argue that cash bail disproportionately impacts low-income individuals and communities of color, leading to pre-trial incarceration based on wealth rather than flight risk or danger. They assert that such policies are ineffective in reducing crime and can exacerbate cycles of poverty and incarceration, and that linking federal grants to these policies is an overreach into state and local judicial autonomy, undermining equitable justice reforms.

The bill text is very short and straightforward, allowing for quick comprehension of its core mechanism and implications.

Section 2, amending Section 502 of title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (34 U.S.C. 10153)

Ineligibility for Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grants (JAG) based on cash bail policies

prominently featuredstraightforward

This provision amends existing law to make states and local governments ineligible for federal Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grants if they implement policies or laws that significantly restrict the use of cash bail for individuals accused of certain serious crimes. These "covered offenses" are broadly defined to include violent crimes, sexual offenses, and acts that disrupt public order, such as murder, rape, robbery, and rioting. The goal is to compel jurisdictions to retain cash bail as an option for these types of offenses to remain eligible for federal funding, starting from the first fiscal year after the bill's enactment.

GroupImpactMechanismScale

GroupStates and units of local government currently limiting cash bail for covered offensesImpactLoss of federal funding (JAG grants)MechanismFederal law ties grant eligibility to local bail policy, making non-compliant jurisdictions ineligible for financial assistance.ScalePotentially millions of dollars in federal funding annually, depending on the size and number of affected jurisdictions.

GroupDefendants charged with covered offenses in affected jurisdictionsImpactIncreased likelihood of cash bail being imposed or maintained as a condition of release.MechanismJurisdictions may revert to or maintain cash bail policies to retain federal funding, impacting pre-trial detention decisions.ScaleBroad impact on pre-trial detention practices and the financial burden on defendants and their families.

GroupLaw enforcement agencies and criminal justice programsImpactPotential reduction in resources and operational capacity if grants are lost.MechanismJAG grants fund various criminal justice initiatives, including equipment, training, and community programs.ScaleVaries by jurisdiction, potentially impacting a wide range of public safety services.

Supporters argue

Supporters argue this provision ensures that federal funds are not used to support policies that they believe endanger communities. They contend that requiring cash bail for serious offenses is a necessary tool for public safety and accountability, ensuring defendants appear in court and deterring further criminal activity, thereby protecting citizens from repeat offenders.

Critics contend

Opponents argue this provision is a federal overreach into state and local judicial systems, coercing jurisdictions to adopt specific bail policies. They contend that cash bail is an inequitable system that punishes poverty and that reforms are essential for a fairer justice system, and that this bill undermines local efforts to achieve justice reform.

Tradeoffs

The provision navigates the tension between federal influence over local criminal justice policy and state and local autonomy. It also highlights the ongoing debate between public safety concerns, as defined by proponents of cash bail, and concerns about equity and fairness in the pre-trial justice system, particularly regarding wealth-based detention.

About this analysis. AI-Generated from the official bill text and available committee reports. Gaps in available data are noted explicitly. Verify important details with the official Congress.gov record.