No Funding for Lawless Jurisdictions Act

Bill Number

H.R. 5624

Origin Chamber

House

Congress

119th Congress, Session 1

Policy Area

Crime and Law Enforcement

Status

Introduced

Latest Action

2025-09-30: Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.

Last Updated

2025-12-16T16:27:07Z

AI-Generated Summary

Purpose of the Legislation

This bill, titled the "No Funding for Lawless Jurisdictions Act," aims to limit federal crime control grants to certain states, local governments, and urban areas that adopt policies seen as weakening public safety. It seeks to encourage stricter pretrial detention practices and sustained funding for law enforcement by tying grant eligibility to these standards.

Key Provisions

• Restrictions on Grants for Bail and Pretrial Release Policies (amending Section 502 of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968):
• Starting in the first fiscal year after enactment, the U.S. Attorney General cannot award, renew, or extend grants under this section to any state or local government that has a policy or law in place that:
• Significantly limits or eliminates cash bail (a financial guarantee to ensure a defendant appears in court) as an option for people charged with "covered offenses."
• Allows judges or magistrates to release individuals previously convicted of a felony on "personal recognizance" (a promise to appear in court without posting bail or other security).
• "Covered offenses" include serious crimes posing a threat to public safety, such as:
• Violent or sexual acts (e.g., murder, rape, sexual assault, carjacking, robbery, burglary, assault).
• Acts promoting disorder (e.g., looting, vandalism, property destruction, rioting or inciting riots, fleeing from police).

• Restrictions on Grants for Law Enforcement Budget Cuts (amending Section 1702 of the same Act):
• Starting in the first fiscal year after enactment, the Attorney General cannot award, renew, or extend grants under this section to "covered jurisdictions" that have cut a law enforcement agency's budget in the prior fiscal year, unless the cut is part of a proportional reduction across all government departments due to an overall budget shortfall.
• "Covered jurisdictions" are defined as local governments in "urbanized areas" (densely populated regions as designated by the U.S. Census Bureau).

Significant Changes to Existing Law

• The bill introduces new eligibility requirements to two existing federal grant programs under the 1968 Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act, which previously did not include these specific restrictions on bail practices or police funding.
• These changes apply prospectively (starting the fiscal year after enactment) and target only certain grants related to crime control and community policing, without altering the underlying grant purposes or amounts.

Potential Impacts

• On Government Agencies: The U.S. Department of Justice (via the Attorney General) will need to monitor and enforce compliance, potentially increasing administrative workload for grant reviews. States and local governments may lose access to federal funds, affecting programs for crime prevention, victim services, and policing.
• On Citizens: Residents in non-compliant areas could see reduced federal support for local crime-fighting initiatives, potentially leading to higher crime rates or strained public safety resources. It may also influence pretrial practices, keeping more individuals detained before trial in compliant jurisdictions.
• On International Relations: No direct impacts, as the bill focuses on domestic criminal justice funding.

Main Stakeholders Affected

• States and Local Governments: Primary recipients of the grants; non-urban areas are exempt from budget-cut rules, but all face bail policy restrictions.
• Law Enforcement Agencies: Benefit from protected funding but may face challenges if local budgets are cut proportionally.
• U.S. Department of Justice and Attorney General: Responsible for implementing and overseeing grant denials.
• Citizens and Defendants: Particularly those in urban areas or facing covered offenses, as policies could affect detention, release, and community safety programs.
• Criminal Justice Reform Advocates: May oppose the bill for limiting local flexibility on bail and budgeting.

Notable Legal, Constitutional, or Political Implications

• Legal: Relies on Congress's spending power (authority to attach conditions to federal funds), but could face challenges if seen as overly coercive on state and local policies, potentially violating principles of federalism (the division of power between federal and state governments).
• Constitutional: Might raise due process concerns (fair treatment under the law) if it indirectly pressures changes to pretrial rights, though it does not directly alter constitutional protections like the Eighth Amendment (banning excessive bail).
• Political: Highlights tensions between "tough on crime" approaches and criminal justice reforms (e.g., reducing cash bail to address inequality); could influence elections and partisan debates on public safety funding, with supporters viewing it as promoting order and opponents as punitive toward progressive policies.

This summary was generated by AI and may contain inaccuracies. Refer to the official source document for the authoritative text.

Sponsor

Rep. Harris, Mark [R-NC-8]

Cosponsors (15)

Rep. Biggs, Andy [R-AZ-5], Rep. Roy, Chip [R-TX-21], Rep. Taylor, David J. [R-OH-2], Rep. Murphy, Gregory F. [R-NC-3], Rep. Brecheen, Josh [R-OK-2], Rep. Miller, Mary E. [R-IL-15], Rep. Norman, Ralph [R-SC-5], Rep. Edwards, Chuck [R-NC-11], Rep. Biggs, Sheri [R-SC-3], Rep. Self, Keith [R-TX-3], Rep. Fry, Russell [R-SC-7], Rep. Hamadeh, Abraham J. [R-AZ-8], Rep. Harrigan, Pat [R-NC-10], Rep. Hunt, Wesley [R-TX-38], Rep. Nehls, Troy E. [R-TX-22]

Recent Actions

• 2025-09-30: Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
• 2025-09-30: Introduced in House
• 2025-09-30: Introduced in House

Bill Versions

• No Funding for Lawless Jurisdictions Act — issued 2025-09-30 — PDF (3 pages)