S-5492-119
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
Sponsored by Bill Hagerty (R-TN)
What it does
The bill would amend federal transit law so that, beginning in fiscal year 2028, the Transportation Secretary would be required to withhold up to 100 percent of formula funds from a transit recipient after 30 days' notice if its state or local government does not make fare evasion a crime, does not ban people who commit violent offenses from riding transit, or allows pretrial release on personal recognizance or an unsecured bond. It would also require recipients in urbanized areas of 200,000 or more to set aside at least 3 percent of formula funds for safety projects, and it would bar the transit agencies in the largest urbanized areas (200,000+ people, 100+ buses) from running zero-fare programs, with exceptions. The Secretary would set crime-based safety targets and could withhold up to 100 percent of formula funds, terminate grants, or redirect spending from recipients that miss targets or whose crime rates are well above the national average. Other provisions would require cameras on newly bought vehicles, fare-evasion barrier standards, a passenger reporting app, and a public "Family Friendly Transit Scorecard" with posted images of people recorded committing crimes, and other limits apply.
Who benefits
Transit riders and workers who may see more lighting, cameras, police presence and bus-operator barriers. Bus operators facing assaults. Security vendors, camera and fare-gate manufacturers, and transit police that would receive more funded work. Agencies that already criminalize fare evasion, ban violent offenders and use cash bail, which would face no withholding. Riders and local businesses near stations who may see fewer incidents.
Who is hurt
Transit agencies in states or cities that treat fare evasion as a civil matter, allow pretrial release without bail, or run fare-free service, which could lose large shares of federal formula funds. Riders who depend on those agencies, including low-income and disabled riders, if service is cut. Agencies in high-crime areas that would face withholding and compliance costs. People who cannot afford fares or bail, who may face more criminal exposure. State and local governments whose criminal-justice and bail laws would be pressured by federal funding conditions. Agencies bearing costs for fare gates, cameras, apps and reporting.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that federal transit dollars should reward systems that keep riders safe, and that fare-evasion enforcement, bans on violent offenders and pretrial detention rules deter disorder on vehicles and in stations. They contend the 3 percent safety set-aside, camera and barrier requirements, and public scorecard give agencies concrete tools and give riders transparency, and that 30 days' notice and restoration of withheld funds upon compliance offer a fair path to avoid penalties.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that withholding up to 100 percent of transit funds would hurt the riders it claims to protect, including workers and low-income residents who rely on buses and trains. They contend the bill dictates state criminal and bail law through funding conditions, bans fare-free programs that localities chose, and gives the Secretary broad power to set targets without normal rulemaking, with a crime-rate formula that may penalize cities for conditions beyond agency control.
Constitutional context
Congress conditions funds under the Spending Clause (Art. I, §8, cl. 1), and South Dakota v. Dole (1987) allows conditions that are clearly stated, related to the program's purpose, and not coercive. NFIB v. Sebelius (2012) held that threatening a large share of existing funds can be unconstitutionally coercive, and the Tenth Amendment and anti-commandeering limits (Murphy v. NCAA, 2018) bear on federal pressure over state bail and criminal law. Waiving notice-and-comment rulemaking is a matter of statutory choice by Congress.
Checks and balances
The bill shifts power to the executive branch (the Transportation Secretary), which would set targets without notice-and-comment rulemaking and decide on withholding, while states and localities lose discretion; the checks are courts' review of funding conditions and congressional oversight, since several penalties are discretionary ("may").
Historical precedent
Congress has previously tied highway funds to state laws, as in the 1984 law conditioning funds on a minimum drinking age of 21, which the Supreme Court upheld in South Dakota v. Dole (1987).