No Bailouts for Cashless Bail Jurisdictions Act
- Sponsor
- Rep. Mace, Nancy [R-SC-1]
- Committees
- Judiciary Committee (primary)
- Last action
- May 14, 2026
Bottom line
This bill seeks to compel local jurisdictions to maintain cash bail systems for specified offenses by withholding federal funding, thereby influencing local criminal justice policy.
What it actually does
This bill prohibits the allocation of federal funds to any jurisdiction that the Attorney General determines has largely eliminated cash bail as a condition for pretrial release for a specified list of 'covered offenses.' It mandates quarterly determinations by the Attorney General and provides a pathway for jurisdictions to regain funding if they reinstate cash bail policies.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue this bill enhances public safety by ensuring accountability for serious crimes and preventing the release of dangerous individuals without financial incentive to return to court. They contend it addresses a perceived rise in crime linked to bail reform and restores a necessary tool for law enforcement.
Opponents contend
Opponents would argue this bill undermines local judicial autonomy, disproportionately impacts low-income individuals and minority groups, and could lead to increased incarceration rates for non-violent offenders, exacerbating systemic inequalities. They might also contend that cash bail does not effectively improve public safety.
The bill is concise and straightforward, allowing for a quick and thorough review of its provisions within a short timeframe.
Section 2(a)
Withholding Federal Funds for Cashless Bail Jurisdictions
This provision mandates that no federal funds can be provided to any jurisdiction (state, county, city, etc.) if the Attorney General determines that jurisdiction has largely eliminated cash bail as a possible condition for pretrial release for a 'covered offense.' This effectively uses federal funding as leverage to influence local bail policies.
Supporters argue
Proponents argue this provision is necessary to ensure jurisdictions maintain effective public safety measures, believing that cash bail incentivizes court appearances and deters further criminal activity. They contend it prevents 'soft-on-crime' policies.
Critics contend
Opponents would argue this provision represents federal overreach into local judicial matters, infringes on states' rights, and could force jurisdictions to adopt policies that disproportionately harm low-income individuals who cannot afford bail, leading to increased pretrial detention.
Tradeoffs
The provision balances federal interest in public safety outcomes with local autonomy over criminal justice policy. It creates a tension between a jurisdiction's desire for federal funding and its ability to implement preferred bail reform measures.
Section 2(b)
Quarterly Attorney General Review and Public Disclosure
This section requires the Attorney General to identify and publicly announce, along with an explanation, which jurisdictions have substantially eliminated cash bail for covered offenses. This determination must be made within 30 days of the bill's enactment and then quarterly thereafter, ensuring ongoing monitoring and transparency.
Section 2(c)
Conditions for Resuming Federal Funding
A jurisdiction that has lost federal funds due to its cashless bail policy can regain access to those funds. This occurs either 180 days after the initial determination of cashless bail, or on the date the Attorney General determines the jurisdiction no longer substantially eliminates cash bail for covered offenses, whichever is later. This provides a pathway for compliance.
Section 3(2)
Scope of Offenses Subject to Cash Bail Requirement
This section broadly defines 'covered offense' to include a range of serious crimes such as crimes of violence, sex offenses, indecent acts, crimes involving moral turpitude, burglary, vandalism, and looting. Crucially, it also grants the Attorney General the authority to determine 'any other criminal offense' appropriate for inclusion, significantly expanding the potential scope.
The definition of 'covered offense' includes 'any other criminal offense under Federal, State, or local law the Attorney General determines appropriate.'
Section 3(2)(H)
Why it matters:While definitions sections are standard, granting such broad discretionary power to an executive official within a definition can be seen as a way to expand the bill's reach without explicit legislative debate on each potential expansion.
Case for: Supporters would argue this flexibility allows the Attorney General to respond to emerging crime trends or local conditions, ensuring the bill remains effective and adaptable in protecting public safety.
Case against: Critics would contend this grants excessive, unchecked power to the Attorney General, allowing them to unilaterally expand the scope of federal intervention into local criminal justice without further congressional approval, potentially leading to politically motivated decisions.
Estimated impact: Potentially significant, as it could vastly expand the number and types of offenses for which cash bail is effectively mandated by federal funding conditions.
Defines 'looting' to include participation in a riot (referencing 18 U.S.C. 2102) or taking property during a riot, civil unrest, or natural disaster by various means.
Section 3(8)
Why it matters:While defining terms is standard, the breadth of 'looting' and its inclusion of 'civil unrest' and 'natural disaster' could be seen as an attempt to cover a wider range of public disturbances under the cash bail mandate, potentially drawing in situations not typically associated with 'looting' in common parlance.
Case for: Proponents would argue this broad definition is necessary to deter and punish opportunistic criminal behavior during periods of public disorder or crisis, ensuring that individuals who exploit such situations face appropriate accountability.
Case against: Opponents might argue that the definition is overly broad and could be applied to a wide range of activities, potentially criminalizing actions that are not typically considered 'looting' or disproportionately impacting individuals during protests or emergencies.
Estimated impact: Could significantly expand the number of incidents and individuals subject to cash bail requirements during periods of social unrest or natural disaster.