The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday declined to decide whether requiring criminal defendants to pay a fixed amount of cash bail to secure their release from jail before trial violates the U.S. Constitution.
The justices turned away an appeal by Bradley Hester of a lower court's ruling that upheld Cullman County, Alabama's cash bail system. Hester was required to remain in jail following a misdemeanor arrest because he could not afford to make a $1,000 bail payment.
Hester joined a lawsuit against Cullman County Sheriff Matthew Gentry and other officials in 2017 following his arrest and detention for possessing drug paraphernalia. He argued that jailing defendants due to their inability to pay bail violated the constitutional guarantee of equal protection under the law, and ran afoul of the presumption of innocence that defendants enjoy under the American legal system.
A federal judge in Alabama in 2018 temporarily blocked Cullman County's bail practices, ruling that Hester was likely to prevail on his claim that the county's "discriminatory bail practices deprive indigent criminal defendants in Cullman County of equal protection of the law." But a divided 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel in 2022 reversed that ruling, prompting Hester's appeal to the Supreme Court.
A group of legal scholars with expertise on bail practices had urged the justices to take up the case, arguing in a friend-of-court brief that the American legal tradition protects the right to liberty before conviction. Bail reform advocates say that, in addition to a defendant being deprived of freedom, jail inmates can also be exposed to violence and disease, suffer loss of employment and housing, and may be coerced into pleading guilty to secure their release.
Deutschland Neuesten Nachrichten, Deutschland Schlagzeilen
Similar News:Sie können auch ähnliche Nachrichten wie diese lesen, die wir aus anderen Nachrichtenquellen gesammelt haben.
Supreme Court ruling in Alabama case could aid election lawsuits in MississippiMultiple lawsuits alleging that Mississippi legislative and judicial districts dilute Black voter strength could be bolstered by the recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling.
Weiterlesen »
Republicans set to lose multiple seats due to Supreme Court rulingNAACP president Derrick Johnson welcomed the Supreme Court's decision as a 'triumph for our democracy.'
Weiterlesen »
Why the Supreme Court Declined an Opportunity to Diminish the Voting Rights ActIn a new Q. & A., IChotiner speaks with ruthgreenwood about the Supreme Court’s recent ruling on Allen v. Milligan, which determined that Alabama’s redistricting had illegally diluted the power of Black voters.
Weiterlesen »
Supreme Court endorses race-based districtingChief Justice John Roberts famously wrote in a 2006 political redistricting case that “it is a sordid business, this divvying us up by race.” In a landmark redistricting decision on June 8, Roberts engaged in exactly this sordid business.
Weiterlesen »
US Supreme Court Kicks American Wetlands When They're DownIt appears the Court's right-wing majority wants to open the floodgates to polluters even as we continue to learn more about just how connected wetlands are to bigger bodies of water and also to our entire way of life.
Weiterlesen »
Supreme Court Voting Rights Decision an Important, If Qualified, WinWhile Allen v. Milligan should be celebrated as a victory for fair representation, it cannot be an excuse for congressional inaction.
Weiterlesen »