Passed
308 Yea116 Nay6 Not voting1/2 required
HR-5625-119
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
Sponsored by Mark Harris (R-NC)
What it does
This bill would require the collection and public reporting of data on cashless bail (also called "no cash bail" or "pretrial release") policies used in U.S. jurisdictions. It would establish a federal reporting mechanism to track outcomes — such as court appearance rates and rearrest rates — for defendants released without a cash bail requirement. The specific agency responsible for collecting and publishing the data would be designated under the bill.
Who benefits
Researchers, policymakers, and journalists who would gain access to standardized national data on pretrial release outcomes. Jurisdictions considering adopting or repealing cashless bail policies would benefit from evidence to inform those decisions. Criminal justice reform advocates who support cashless bail would benefit from a public record of outcomes. Defendants in jurisdictions with cashless bail who may benefit from reduced pretrial detention. Taxpayers in jurisdictions that spend less on pretrial incarceration under such policies.
Who is hurt
Jurisdictions with cashless bail policies that oppose federal oversight or data collection mandates may face administrative burdens and compliance costs. Bail bond industry participants — including bail bondsmen and surety companies — could be indirectly harmed if the data is used to support expansion of cashless bail policies. State and local governments would bear reporting costs. Victims' advocacy groups who oppose cashless bail may be concerned if the reporting framework is structured in a way that does not capture rearrest or re-offense data.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that cashless bail policies have expanded significantly across states — including in New Jersey, Illinois, and California — yet no standardized federal data exists to evaluate their effects on public safety or court appearance rates. They contend that transparent, nationally consistent reporting would allow evidence-based policymaking, replacing politically charged anecdotes with verifiable outcomes data that benefits both reform advocates and public safety officials.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that a federal reporting mandate on cashless bail represents an intrusion into a traditionally state and local function — pretrial justice administration — and could be a precursor to federal pressure on jurisdictions to change their bail practices. They contend that existing state-level data collection efforts are sufficient, and that a federally designed reporting framework may be structured to produce results that favor a particular policy outcome rather than neutral measurement.
Constitutional context
Bail practices are primarily governed by state law, but the Eighth Amendment's prohibition on excessive bail applies to federal proceedings and has been incorporated against the states via the Fourteenth Amendment. A federal data collection mandate would rest on Congress's spending power or Commerce Clause authority; no direct constitutional conflict is apparent from a reporting-only bill, though anti-commandeering principles (Murphy v. NCAA, 2018) could be raised if the bill compels state agencies to collect and submit data.
Checks and balances
Congress would direct a federal agency (likely DOJ or BJS) to collect and publish the data; states and localities would bear reporting obligations; Congress retains oversight authority over the agency's methodology and findings.
Historical precedent
The Bureau of Justice Statistics has previously collected pretrial data through programs like the State Court Processing Statistics series, though no dedicated federal cashless bail reporting mandate has previously been enacted.
Passed