Skip to main content

The Illinois Supreme Court Cash Bail Ruling, Explained


Under a landmark court ruling issued this week, Illinois will become the first state in the nation to abolish cash bail. The state supreme court upheld the Illinois Pretrial Fairness Act, which abolishes cash bail and specifies procedures judges must use to impose pretrial detention. Here’s what you need to know, and what happens next.

What does the Illinois Pretrial Fairness Act do?

In addition to eliminating cash bail, the Illinois Pretrial Fairness Act clarifies that everyone is eligible for pretrial release, and it’s the government’s burden to prove that anyone should be detained.

Why was there a lawsuit over it?

Despite broad support for this law, including support from victims’ rights advocates, the law was challenged by officials from a small county. Three of their claims made it to the Illinois Supreme Court: that abolishing cash bail violates the right to bail, the rights of crime victims, and separation of powers under Illinois law.

What did the court decide?

The Illinois Supreme Court rejected all these arguments. Specifically, the court held:

  • “Bail” doesn’t require money. There are plenty of ways for courts to ensure that people return to court, and keep everyone safe, without ordering a person to pay for their freedom.
  • Abolishing cash bail doesn’t harm victims. Under the new law, judges must consider safety risks posed by release, and give victims notice of relevant bail proceedings.
  • Abolishing cash bail is squarely within the legislature’s power. Separation of powers means that it’s up to judges to apply the law in individual cases. But changing the legal framework — here, eliminating cash bail — is perfectly appropriate for the legislature to do.

This landmark ruling refutes false narratives about cash bail. The truth is that abolishing cash bail improves public safety by allowing people to return to their communities and families who would otherwise be in jail only because they can’t pay for their freedom. When people can go home, take care of their families, and keep up with school or work, that stability makes all our communities safer and stronger.

What happens next?

The law goes into effect on September 18. Anyone currently jailed under a cash bail order will get a release hearing under the new law, and Illinois becomes the first state to implement a pretrial system that will never demand payment for release.

Other states should follow this example by passing laws that abolish cash bail and reduce pretrial detention. Increasing reliance on cash bail over the last three decades has contributed to a significant rise in pretrial detention, which in turn contributes to our status as the leading incarcerator in the world. None of this has made communities safer, but it has subjected countless people to the dangers of being locked in jail cells, and deprived them of equal justice. We can reverse this trend by releasing more people pretrial, which jurisdictions across the country are doing with great success. These examples show that safety and freedom go hand in hand.

Stay informed about our work
Sign up
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Trump's Attempt to Unilaterally Control State and Local Funding is Dangerous, Dumb, and Undemocratic

The Trump administration has not been subtle in its desire to use federal funding for political punishment. Whether threatening to cut off grants to sanctuary cities, to block financial assistance to states that push back against the president’s demands, or to freeze all federal grants and loans for social services across the country, Trump and his allies want us to believe they can wield the federal budget like a weapon. The reality is that the administration’s ability to withhold or condition funding is far more limited than they let on. The Constitution, Supreme Court precedent, and long-standing federal law stand firmly in the way of this brazen abuse of presidential power. Trump’s Attempted Funding Freeze? Blocked Immediately A week into his second administration, Trump attempted to freeze trillions of dollars in federal grants and loans that fund a vast array of critical services already approved by Congress. If allowed to go into effect, this unprecedented and far-reaching...
Post a Comment
Read more

Documents Reveal Confusion and Lack of Training in Texas Execution

As Texas seeks to execute Carl Buntion today and Melissa Lucio next week, it is worth reflecting on the grave and irreversible failures that occurred when the state executed Quintin Jones on May 19, 2021. For the first time in its history — and in violation of a federal court’s directive and the Texas Administrative Code — Texas excluded the media from witnessing the state’s execution of Quintin Jones. In the months that followed, Texas executed two additional people without providing any assurance that the underlying dysfunction causing errors at Mr. Jones’ execution were addressed. This is particularly concerning given that Texas has executed far more people than any other state and has botched numerous executions. The First Amendment guarantees the public and the press have a right to observe executions. Media access to executions is a critical form of public oversight as the government exerts its power to end a human life. Consistent with Texas policy, two reporters travelled t...
Post a Comment
Read more

The Supreme Court Declined a Protestors' Rights Case. Here's What You Need to Know.

The Supreme Court recently declined to hear a case, Mckesson v. Doe , that could have affirmed that the First Amendment protects protest organizers from being held liable for illegal actions committed by others present that organizers did not direct or intend. The high court’s decision to not hear the case at this time left in place an opinion by the Fifth Circuit, which covers Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas, that said a protest organizer could be liable for the independent, violent actions of others based on nothing more than a showing of negligence. Across the country, many people have expressed concern about how the Supreme Court’s decision not to review, or hear, the case at this stage could impact the right to protest. The ACLU, which asked the court to take up the case, breaks down what the court’s denial of review means. What Happened in Mckesson v. Doe? The case, Mckesson v. Doe , was brought by a police officer against DeRay Mckesson , a prominent civil rights activi...
Post a Comment
Read more