No Free Pass for Felons Act of 2025
- Sponsor
- Rep. Harrigan, Pat [R-NC-10]
- Committees
- Homeland Security Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Nov 24, 2025
Bottom line
This bill aims to restrict federal funding for jurisdictions that do not implement stricter pretrial detention standards for certain violent offenders and requires transparency in pretrial release data.
What it actually does
This bill amends the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 and the Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007 to condition eligibility for certain federal law enforcement and public safety grants (Byrne JAG, COPS, and Transit Security Grants) on states and local governments adopting specific pretrial release policies. These policies would prohibit cashless or unsecured bail for 'covered defendants' without a judicial dangerousness hearing and a written finding that conditions assure public safety and appearance. The bill also mandates annual data collection and publication on pretrial release outcomes for these defendants.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue the bill enhances public safety by preventing the release of dangerous individuals on cashless bail, which they contend leads to increased crime. They assert that conditioning federal funds is a legitimate exercise of Congress's spending power to encourage responsible public safety policies and ensure accountability through data collection.
Opponents contend
Opponents might argue that the bill federalizes local criminal justice policy, potentially leading to increased incarceration rates and disproportionately affecting marginalized communities. They may also contend that it undermines judicial discretion and could strain state and local budgets by forcing compliance or foregoing critical federal grants.
The bill is relatively short and its core provisions are clear, making it accessible for a reader to evaluate its main impacts within a reasonable timeframe.
Section 3(a)(1), amending Section 502(a) of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968.
Pretrial Release Standards for Byrne JAG Grants
This provision requires states and local governments applying for Byrne Justice Assistance Grants to certify they have a law or policy prohibiting pretrial release on personal recognizance or unsecured bond for 'covered defendants' unless a court first conducts a 'dangerousness hearing' and makes a written finding that conditions will assure public safety and appearance. A 'covered defendant' includes individuals charged with violent offenses, repeat offenders, or those on supervision for violent offenses.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue this provision directly addresses the perceived public safety risk posed by cashless bail policies for violent offenders, ensuring that federal funds do not support practices deemed detrimental to community safety.
Critics contend
Critics might argue this provision infringes on state and local autonomy in criminal justice matters and could lead to increased pretrial incarceration, potentially exacerbating issues like jail overcrowding and disproportionate impacts on certain communities.
Tradeoffs
Balances federal influence over local criminal justice policy with state autonomy, and public safety concerns with individual liberty and due process rights.
Section 3(a)(1), amending Section 502(a) of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968.
Pretrial Release Data Collection and Publication for Byrne JAG Grants
This provision requires Byrne JAG grant applicants to certify they have a system to annually collect and publish data on judicial release determinations for covered violent offenses, rearrests for covered violent offenses, and failures to appear, disaggregated by the type of pretrial release. This aims to increase transparency and accountability in pretrial justice systems.
Section 3(a)(3), adding Section 505(j) to the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968.
Penalty for Non-Compliance with Byrne JAG Grant Requirements
If the Attorney General determines a state or local government fails to meet the pretrial release standards or data collection requirements for Byrne JAG grants, the grant award will be reduced by up to 15% (not more than 85% of the allocable amount) after notice and opportunity to cure. This serves as an enforcement mechanism for the new conditions.
Section 3(b), amending Section 1702(c) and 1706 of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968.
Pretrial Public Safety Conditions for COPS Grants
This provision extends the same pretrial release standards and data collection requirements (as defined for Byrne JAG grants) to eligibility for Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) grants. Failure to maintain this certification constitutes noncompliance, potentially leading to a loss of COPS funding.
Section 3(c), amending Section 1406 of the Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007.
Pretrial Public Safety Conditions for Transit Security Grants
This provision requires public transportation agencies applying for Transit Security Grants to certify that their operating state (or local government with pretrial release authority) meets the same pretrial release standards and data collection requirements. The Secretary of Homeland Security may grant a temporary waiver for acute site-specific security threats.
Defines 'covered defendant' as an individual who is charged with a 'covered violent offense'; charged with any offense if they have been convicted of a covered violent offense arising out of a separate course of conduct; or charged with any offense while on probation, parole, or supervised release for a covered violent offense.
Section 3(a)(2) and 3(c)(1), defining terms for Byrne JAG, COPS, and Transit Security grants.
Why it matters:While placing definitions in a dedicated section is standard legislative practice, the expansive scope of who qualifies as a 'covered defendant' could be easily overlooked, despite its profound impact on the bill's reach.
Case for: Proponents would argue this broad definition is necessary to capture individuals who have demonstrated a pattern of violent behavior or are already under supervision, ensuring public safety by subjecting them to stricter pretrial review regardless of the new charge's severity.
Case against: Opponents might argue that including individuals charged with 'any offense' (even minor ones) simply because of a past conviction or current supervision for a violent offense is overly broad and could lead to unnecessary pretrial detention, disproportionately affecting certain populations.
Estimated impact: Significantly expands the scope of individuals subject to mandatory dangerousness hearings and potentially stricter pretrial release conditions beyond those currently charged with a violent offense.
Defines 'covered violent offense' as 'an offense that has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person or property of another.'
Section 3(a)(2) and 3(c)(2), defining terms for Byrne JAG, COPS, and Transit Security grants.
Why it matters:Standard legislative practice, but the specific wording of this definition is critical as it determines the types of offenses that trigger the bill's core provisions.
Case for: Proponents would argue this definition is appropriately focused on offenses involving force, directly targeting the types of crimes that pose the most immediate threat to public safety and are the primary concern of the bill.
Case against: Critics might argue that the definition could be interpreted broadly to include offenses that are not typically considered 'violent' in common parlance, potentially expanding the scope of the bill beyond its stated intent.
Estimated impact: Determines which specific offenses trigger the stricter pretrial release conditions, directly influencing the number of individuals affected by the bill's requirements.
Defines 'dangerousness hearing' as 'a hearing consistent with subsections (e), (f), and (g) of section 3142 of title 18, United States Code.'
Section 3(a)(2) and 3(c)(3), defining terms for Byrne JAG, COPS, and Transit Security grants.
Why it matters:It is standard legislative drafting to incorporate established legal frameworks by reference, but it necessitates legal expertise to fully grasp the procedural requirements for state courts.
Case for: Proponents would argue that referencing an established federal standard for dangerousness hearings (from the Bail Reform Act of 1984) provides a clear, constitutionally sound, and well-understood framework for states to adopt, ensuring consistency and due process.
Case against: Opponents might argue that imposing a federal procedural standard on state courts could be seen as an overreach, potentially creating administrative burdens or conflicts with existing state judicial procedures.
Estimated impact: Mandates specific procedural requirements for pretrial hearings in state courts, including factors for consideration, presentation of evidence, and findings, for all 'covered defendants'.