California Public Defenders Condemn Trump’s Move on Cashless Bail

Key points:

• President Trump signs executive order to end cashless bail.
• California Public Defenders Association denounces the order as unconstitutional.
• Research shows bail reform does not lead to increased crime rates.

Earlier this week, President Trump signed an executive order aimed at ending cashless bail across the United States, framing it as part of his administration’s broader effort to combat crime. The move, which he described as necessary for public safety, was swiftly denounced by criminal justice reform advocates in California and across the nation.

The California Public Defenders Association (CPDA) issued a statement condemning the order, calling it a direct attack on constitutional protections and hard-fought progress in bail reform.

CPDA Executive Director Kate Chatfield said, “The California Public Defenders Association condemns President Trump’s executive order seeking to roll back bail reform and reinstate money bail practices in jurisdictions where there has been necessary reform. This order and the President’s ill-informed statements are a direct attack on the constitutional principles of fairness and equality that should underpin our justice system.

“For decades, the use of money bail has punished people for their poverty rather than their conduct,” Chatfield said. “Those who can afford to pay are set free, while low-income people who are disproportionately people of color are forced to languish in jail, separated from their families, jobs, and communities, often pleading guilty simply to regain their freedom.”

Trump’s order directs federal agencies to limit support for jurisdictions that rely on cashless bail systems and calls for a review of funding to local governments that eliminate money bail. While the president and his allies argue that cashless bail fuels crime and endangers communities, independent research contradicts these claims.

Chatfield noted that California courts have already established constitutional limits on money bail.

“In re Humphrey (2021), the California Supreme Court declared that it is unconstitutional to detain a person before trial solely because they cannot afford bail. And in 2023, the Los Angeles Superior Court implemented its Pre-Arraignment Release Protocols (PARPs). This effectively eliminated money bail for most low-level offenses,” she said.

Research from the California Policy Lab shows that reforms like PARPs both significantly reduced jail populations and did not lead to an increase in crime rates. Chatfield emphasized that this evidence is critical to countering Trump’s narrative.

“Independent research from the California Policy Lab shows that this reform both significantly reduced jail populations and did not increase crime rates, proving that communities can be kept safe without tying pretrial freedom to wealth. These rulings laid a constitutional foundation for a fairer and more equitable pretrial system in California,” she said.

In an interview, Chatfield said Trump’s order does not directly alter California’s bail practices but still carries significant consequences.

“The federal, the state and county courts are not controlled by federal law when it comes to things like bail and criminal law. That is a matter of the state’s purview, of course. And for federal crimes, it’s a matter of the federal government’s purview. So the question is, how does it impact county courts? It does not directly impact county courts at this time,” she said.

She warned that the more dangerous impact lies in the way political rhetoric filters into the justice system.

“What it does impact or can impact is the false talking points about cash bail makes their way into the public discourse. And these are lies. I mean, the statements made about what he calls cashless bail are just false. And we rebut that in our statement, like particular policy documents and research studies that dispute this, that crime rises, that people don’t show up,” she said.

Chatfield argued that money bail not only fails to improve public safety but actively harms it. “What we do see cash bail doing is that, in fact, it allows people who are wealthy, despite having committed, maybe some being accused of, I should say, some very, very serious crimes, they are allowed to bail out. And people accused of very low-level crimes, if there’s poor and if there’s any amount of cash bail, and they can’t make that, they linger in jail despite not being a public safety risk,” she said.

She described the cascading harms of pretrial detention.

“That person can lose their job … if they have dependents, those dependents can be without a parent or a guardian while they’re in custody. They can lose their housing while they’re in custody. And these are things that are all really have downstream effects on true public safety,” she said.

The question of pretrial detention has been highly politicized in recent years. Conservative media outlets and prosecutors have frequently pointed to so-called “zero bail” policies adopted during the COVID-19 pandemic as evidence that bail reform leads to higher crime.

A recent article in the New York Post cited Yolo County District Attorney Jeff Reisig’s study criticizing zero bail as dangerous.

Chatfield dismissed such claims. “The statements made about what he calls cashless bail are just false,” she said, noting that the research Reisig and others relied on lacked scientific credibility.

Instead, she emphasized that public safety is best served by policies that minimize unnecessary detention while keeping families and communities stable. “Public safety is safety and security, which includes housing, working for children, getting to school, all of these things,” she said.

Chatfield also noted the racial disparities that persist under money bail.

“The criminal legal system disproportionately impacts people of color. So people of color [are] disproportionately arrested, surveyed and brought in to court in our criminal system. And then of course, there’s the overlay because the bail is also, it’s a system based on somebody’s economic status. And so poor people of color are disproportionately poor in this country. So when you have a system like cash bail that impacts the poor, that first you have more people of color being brought into the system, and then you have cash bail, which impacts the poor, then you have a system in which people disproportionately [remain] in custody at the local level,” she said.

Public defenders, she said, have been on the front lines of challenging these inequities. “The role of public defenders in this fight is what it’s been throughout this fight — to argue against cash bail, to always be arguing for the least restrictive alternatives for their client, and to be making sure that their clients can continue to maintain their housing, to be able to take care of their children or their other dependents, including elderly parents,” she said.

She added that the pretrial system often pressures people into guilty pleas. “People who are in custody [face] a huge incentive to plead guilty and to waive your constitutional rights to trial because you need to get out of custody. That’s an absolutely rational decision for people, and it’s a terrible forcing people into a terrible choice,” she said.

At the heart of the debate is the question of what constitutes real public safety. Chatfield rejected the administration’s framing. “What the administration is trying to do undermines public safety. True public safety is making sure people have their basic human needs — housing, food access, access to employment, access to healthcare — and custody in jail takes all of that away. And so particularly when that person has not been convicted, he’s still innocent. So it creates these downstream effects for families and for whole communities, and that’s what we’ve seen with mass incarceration, is that it’s actually, it destroys communities and it undermines public safety,” she said.

For California, the battle over bail reform is not new. Voters narrowly rejected Proposition 25 in 2020, which would have replaced cash bail with risk assessment tools. Courts have since stepped in to set constitutional limits, and counties like Los Angeles have embraced non-monetary pretrial release programs. Advocates fear that Trump’s order could embolden prosecutors and judges to resist these reforms, even if the executive order itself lacks binding power over state systems.

The CPDA said it will continue to fight to preserve progress. “The California Public Defenders Association urges policymakers, courts, and the public to resist this harmful executive order and the false rhetoric and to continue advancing reforms that bring us closer to a truly just and equitable criminal legal system,” the organization said.

Follow the Vanguard on Social Media – X, Instagram and Facebook.  Subscribe the Vanguard News letters.  To make a tax-deductible donation, please visit davisvanguard.org/donate or give directly through ActBlue.  Your support will ensure that the vital work of the Vanguard continues.

Categories:

Tags: