No Free Pass for Felons Act of 2025

Bill Number

H.R. 6263

Origin Chamber

House

Congress

119th Congress, Session 1

Policy Area

Crime and Law Enforcement

Status

Introduced

Latest Action

2025-11-24: Referred to the Subcommittee on Counterterrorism and Intelligence.

Last Updated

2026-07-09T13:27:22Z

AI-Generated Summary

Purpose

The "No Free Pass for Felons Act of 2025" aims to enhance public safety by tying eligibility for certain federal grants to stricter pretrial release standards. It seeks to prevent the release of individuals charged with or previously convicted of violent crimes without a judicial review of their potential danger to the community, ensuring federal funds support policies that prioritize safety over lenient bail practices.

Key Provisions

• Grant Eligibility Certifications: Jurisdictions applying for Byrne Justice Assistance Grants (Byrne JAG), Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) grants, or Transit Security Grants must certify that:
• They have laws or policies prohibiting pretrial release on personal recognizance (no bail required) or unsecured appearance bonds (promise to appear without posting money) for "covered defendants" unless a court holds a "dangerousness hearing" (a proceeding to assess risk, similar to federal bail hearings under 18 U.S.C. § 3142) and issues a written finding that release conditions will ensure the defendant's court appearance and protect public safety.
• They maintain a system to collect and annually publish data on judicial decisions to release defendants charged with violent offenses, their rearrests for such offenses, and failures to appear in court, broken down by release type.
• Definitions:
• Covered defendant: Someone charged with a violent offense, or charged with any offense if they have a prior conviction for a violent offense from a separate incident, or charged while on probation, parole, or supervised release for a violent offense.
• Covered violent offense: Any crime involving the use, attempted use, or threat of physical force against another person or their property (e.g., assault, robbery).
• Penalties for Non-Compliance: The Attorney General can reduce Byrne JAG or COPS funding to 85% of the eligible amount after notice and a chance to fix issues. For transit grants, states must comply, but the Department of Homeland Security Secretary can temporarily waive requirements for urgent security threats.
• Implementation Details:
• Applies to grant applications starting 18 months after enactment.
• Attorney General must issue rules within 180 days of enactment.
• Includes a severability clause (if one part is ruled invalid, the rest remains effective).

Significant Changes to Existing Law

• Amends the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (governing Byrne JAG and COPS programs) by adding new certification requirements in sections 502 and 1702, plus enforcement mechanisms in section 505.
• Modifies the Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007 (transit security grants under 6 U.S.C. § 1135) by inserting a new pretrial safety condition subsection and redefining terms.
• Introduces data collection and transparency mandates not previously required for these grants, shifting focus from general crime-fighting to specific pretrial risk assessment.
• Ties funding reductions to compliance, creating financial incentives absent in prior versions of these laws.

Potential Impacts

• On Government Agencies: State and local law enforcement, courts, and public transportation agencies may need to revise pretrial policies, invest in data systems, and conduct more hearings, potentially increasing administrative workloads and costs. Non-compliant areas could lose up to 15% of federal funding, straining budgets for policing and security.
• On Citizens: Could lead to higher pretrial detention rates for those accused of violent crimes or with violent histories, reducing risks of reoffending but possibly exacerbating jail overcrowding or disparities in low-income or minority communities. Enhanced data publication may improve public awareness of local bail outcomes.
• On International Relations: Minimal direct impact, though transit security grants support infrastructure that could indirectly affect cross-border travel or tourism if funding cuts delay security upgrades.

Main Stakeholders Affected

• State and Local Governments: Primary recipients of grants; must adopt compliant laws/policies or face funding cuts.
• Law Enforcement and Courts: Responsible for implementing hearings and data collection; may see shifts in pretrial practices.
• Public Transportation Agencies: Eligibility tied to state-level compliance, potentially affecting urban transit security.
• Defendants and Communities: Individuals charged with violent offenses face stricter release criteria; residents in high-crime areas may benefit from reduced recidivism risks.
• Federal Agencies: Department of Justice (oversees Byrne JAG/COPS) and Department of Homeland Security (handles transit grants) gain enforcement roles.

Notable Legal, Constitutional, or Political Implications

• Legal: Relies on Congress's spending power (Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution) to condition grants, as affirmed in findings citing Supreme Court precedent like United States v. Salerno (1987), which upheld pretrial detention for dangerousness without violating due process. The bill's data requirements promote transparency but could invite privacy challenges under laws like the Fourth Amendment.
• Constitutional: May raise federalism concerns, as it pressures states to align local criminal justice practices with federal standards, potentially seen as coercive (similar to debates in cases like NFIB v. Sebelius on Medicaid expansion). The dangerousness hearing aligns with federal bail rules, minimizing Eighth Amendment (excessive bail) risks.
• Political: Positions federal funding as a tool to influence state bail reform amid debates on "cashless bail" systems; could polarize views on criminal justice, with supporters emphasizing safety and critics arguing it undermines local autonomy or promotes mass incarceration. The 18-month delay allows preparation but may spark preemptive state legislation.

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

Sponsor

Rep. Harrigan, Pat [R-NC-10]

Cosponsors (1)

Rep. Nehls, Troy E. [R-TX-22]

Recent Actions

• 2025-11-24: Referred to the Subcommittee on Counterterrorism and Intelligence.
• 2025-11-24: Referred to the Subcommittee on Border Security and Enforcement.
• 2025-11-24: Referred to the Subcommittee on Transportation and Maritime Security.
• 2025-11-21: Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on Homeland Security, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
• 2025-11-21: Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on Homeland Security, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
• 2025-11-21: Introduced in House
• 2025-11-21: Introduced in House

Bill Versions

• No Free Pass for Felons Act of 2025 — issued 2025-11-21 — PDF (9 pages)