At least in some areas of the country the idea of putting criminals in jail is still OK.
“In its ruling, the Seventh Circuit held that The Bail Project’s act of posting bail on its own is not protected speech. The court held that “nothing about the act itself inherently expresses any view on the merits of the bail system.” In other words, The Bail Project’s advocacy itself is considered the free speech, not the posting of bail.
In addition, the court maintained that the Indiana Legislature and other legislative bodies have the absolute authority to regulate non-profit bail organizations, including The Bail Project, whether they are local or national in scope. It elaborated by noting Indiana’s legitimate interest to regulate its pretrial detention and bail system, indicating that the very basis of HEA 1300 was “rationally related to that interest.”
The Seventh Circuit also noted that “charitable bail organizations have different incentives, resources, and ties to the community than other bail payors, and therefore, that it was appropriate to treat them differently than bail payors who risk their own money and weigh their own safety to bail out a defendant.” This seems a strong endorsement of the arguments made in the Hofstra Law Review, which argued that crowdsourced bail, like the national Bail Project, absent further regulation, is an insufficient surety as a matter of law and should be disallowed.
That is how screwed up the so called Justice system is—the ACLU considers NO bail to be a form of free speech. Steal from someone therefore is a form of free speech. Are they crazy? YUP.
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT RULES THE BAIL PROJECT IS NOT ABOVE THE LAW IN MAJOR VICTORY FOR PUBLIC SAFETY AND COMMON SENSE
By Jeffrey J. Clayton, Executive Director, American Bail Coalition, Exclusive to the California Political News and Views 8/18/23 https://ambailcoalition.org/
In a major victory for common sense and any American concerned about public safety, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit ruled against The Bail Project in its attempt to put a stop to a law passed by the Indiana legislature that would regulate so-called charitable bail funds.
The Court of Appeal’s ruling represents an historic defeat for The Bail Project and will send a green light to all other state legislatures to regulate charitable bail funds. It also reinforces the reason why bail is necessary and is such an integral part of our criminal justice system. It keeps dangerous individuals who cannot secure their release behind bars pending trial. If they are to be freed, it must be done through a process that considers bona fide economic incentives that will guarantee their appearance in court.
Indiana lawmakers passed HEA 1300 last year, which required non-profit bail organizations to be licensed, while also prohibiting them from bailing out individuals charged with certain felonies or with a record of past violent crime convictions. In response, The Bail Project filed a lawsuit in federal court (The Bail Project, Inc. v. Commissioner, Indiana Department of Insurance), but was denied a request for a preliminary injunction.
The Court of Appeals’ decision made quick work of the premise of the organization’s principle arguments, which included the assertion that its right to free speech had been violated, as well as its rights under the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.
In its ruling, the Seventh Circuit held that The Bail Project’s act of posting bail on its own is not protected speech. The court held that “nothing about the act itself inherently expresses any view on the merits of the bail system.” In other words, The Bail Project’s advocacy itself is considered the free speech, not the posting of bail.
In addition, the court maintained that the Indiana Legislature and other legislative bodies have the absolute authority to regulate non-profit bail organizations, including The Bail Project, whether they are local or national in scope. It elaborated by noting Indiana’s legitimate interest to regulate its pretrial detention and bail system, indicating that the very basis of HEA 1300 was “rationally related to that interest.”
The Seventh Circuit also noted that “charitable bail organizations have different incentives, resources, and ties to the community than other bail payors, and therefore, that it was appropriate to treat them differently than bail payors who risk their own money and weigh their own safety to bail out a defendant.” This seems a strong endorsement of the arguments made in the Hofstra Law Review, which argued that crowdsourced bail, like the national Bail Project, absent further regulation, is an insufficient surety as a matter of law and should be disallowed.
The Bail Project has refused to take responsibility for bailing out individuals who went on to commit violent crime — even murder — after their release was secured by the organization. In 2021, an Indianapolis man, Marcus Garvin, stabbed his girlfriend to death after being bailed out by The Bail Project, despite a history of violence. In the wake of the tragedy, the group’s national operations director said, “As tragic as that particular event was, it still is a very small percentage of the reflection of the work that we do.” He added, “This just happens to be an example of a tragic event.”
Legislatures throughout the country should look upon The Bail Project’s thorough defeat as a signal that they can and should regulate charitable bail funds operating in their jurisdictions.
With the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, The Bail Project can no longer use the bail system to make a point about their perceived inequities of the criminal justice system. Of course, they are still free to bail people out, but only if they follow the rules. The much bigger message of the court’s ruling is that state legislatures have the authority to regulate and cut off access to prevent their meddling with the pretrial detention and release system. Bail funds have different incentives than private payors, and thus may be regulated.
At the end of the day, one wonders whether The Bail Project and its supporters would be better off advocating for the precise legal changes they want, rather than bailing out dangerous people who would be otherwise be in jail. If they truly believe that money bail is fundamentally wrong, they should make logical and legally sound arguments against it. Instead, their approach, which only serves to outrage, obfuscates and confuses their message, and ultimately serves no one.
# # #
About Jeffrey J. Clayton, Executive Director of the American Bail Coalition:
Jeffrey J. Clayton is the Executive Director of the American Bail Coalition. He has worked as a public policy and government relations professional, and also as a licensed attorney, serving a variety of clients in legal, legislative, and policy matters. Mr. Clayton also worked in government service, representing the Colorado Judicial Branch and State Labor Department, and the U.S. Department of Transportation. He is also a prior Presidential Management Fellow and Finalist for the U.S. Supreme Court fellows program. Mr. Clayton holds a B.B.A. from Baylor University, an M.S. in Public Policy from the University of Rochester, N.Y., and a J.D. from the Sturm College of Law, University of Denver.
