Sponsors (3)
I'll give you the short version of this bill.
This is not an official government website.
Copyright © 2026 PLEJ LC. All rights reserved.
Prohibits the Attorney General from awarding, renewing, or extending grants under the specified subpart of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act to any State or local government that has a law or policy that substantially eliminates cash bail for every person charged with a defined set of violent or disorder-related “covered offenses.” The restriction applies beginning with the first fiscal year that starts on the first October 1 after the law’s enactment and for each fiscal year thereafter. The effect is to make federal public-safety grant eligibility conditional on a jurisdiction maintaining cash-bail availability for people charged with those covered offenses; jurisdictions that broadly limit cash bail for those charges would lose access to these grants unless they change their policies.
Amend Section 502 of title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (34 U.S.C. 10153) by modifying the matter designated as subsection (A). The text to be struck and inserted is not provided in this section.
Adds a new subsection (c) that defines the term “covered offense” to mean a criminal offense that poses a clear threat to public safety and order, and explicitly lists examples: (A) offenses involving a violent or sexual act, such as murder, rape, sexual assault, carjacking, robbery, burglary, and assault; and (B) offenses that promote public disorder, such as looting, vandalism, destruction of property, rioting or inciting to riot, or fleeing from a law enforcement officer.
Adds a prohibition that, for the fiscal year beginning on the first October 1 occurring after the date of enactment and for each fiscal year thereafter, the Attorney General may not award, renew, or extend a grant under this subpart to any State or unit of local government that has in effect a policy or law that substantially limits cash bail as a potential condition for every individual charged with a covered offense.
Primary impacts
State and local governments: Direct financial and policy impact. Jurisdictions that have enacted laws or policies that broadly eliminate or substantially limit cash bail for all people charged with the listed violent or disorder-related offenses risk losing eligibility for certain DOJ grants. That may lead some governments to revise statutes or local rules to preserve federal funding.
Local criminal justice systems: Courts, prosecutors, and public defenders in affected jurisdictions could face changes in pretrial procedures if local law is amended in response to the funding condition. This may increase pretrial detentions for the defined offenses where jurisdictions reinstate bail or alter release practices.
People charged with covered offenses and their communities: Individuals charged with the specified offenses could experience reduced access to pretrial release without bail in jurisdictions that reverse bail reforms to retain grant funding. This could disproportionately affect low-income defendants who rely on pretrial release options.
Federal agencies and grant programs: The Department of Justice (through the Attorney General) must implement and enforce the new eligibility restriction, including assessing whether a jurisdiction’s law or policy “substantially limits” bail. That creates administrative responsibilities and potential compliance disputes.
Secondary effects and risks
Incentives and policy trade-offs: Because the mechanism conditions funding, it leverages federal spending power to influence state/local criminal justice policy. Jurisdictions may weigh the loss of federal grant funds against the policy goals of bail reform.
Legal and definitional uncertainty: Terms such as “substantially limits cash bail” and the exact scope of “covered offenses” could prompt litigation or administrative controversy over enforcement and interpretation.
Equity and public-safety debate: The change could affect ongoing debates over pretrial justice, racial and economic disparities in pretrial detention, and public-safety outcomes. The policy may be supported by those prioritizing detention for certain charges and opposed by advocates of bail reform and criminal-justice reform.
Fiscal impact: The immediate fiscal effect is on grant flows to state and local governments; indirect fiscal consequences could include changes in local jail populations, court caseloads, and costs related to detention and supervision.
Expand sections to see detailed analysis
Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Introduced September 4, 2025 by Marsha Blackburn · Last progress September 4, 2025
Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Introduced in Senate