Home » Bail Reform in Houston: Why ‘No-Bond’ Policies Threaten Constitutional Rights?

Handcuffs and US flag with text about bail reform in Houston

May 8, 2025

Crimes in Houston Fuel a ‘No-Bond’ Bail Reform Push 

Recent high-profile crimes in Houston have ignited a passionate debate over bail reform. Elected officials like Texas Governor Greg Abbott are championing aggressive measures to keep certain defendants in jail without bond before trial. In a Houston visit on April 30, 2025, Gov. Abbott stood with crime victims’ families and urged lawmakers to approve a constitutional amendment that would automatically deny bail for people accused of murder and other violent crimes (Abbott calls for support in constitutional amendment denying bonds) (Abbott calls for support in constitutional amendment denying bonds). Abbott argues that judges have “far too much discretion to set easy bail on dangerous criminals,” calling the current system “broken” because the Texas Constitution requires bail in most criminal cases (Abbott calls for support in constitutional amendment denying bonds). He even suggested flipping the legal burden: making detention the default unless a defendant can prove they won’t flee or endanger anyone (Abbott calls for support in constitutional amendment denying bonds). These “no-bond” proposals resonate with public fear after tragic incidents, but they raise serious red flags – especially when it comes to constitutional rights. 

photo of gavel in front of books

Constitutional Protections Under U.S. and Texas Law 

Both the U.S. and Texas Constitutions provide vital protections for people accused of crimes. Under the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, courts cannot impose “[e]xcessive bail,” which has long been interpreted to mean that bail should not be used as a tool of punishment before a conviction. More broadly, American law presumes individuals innocent until proven guilty, so depriving someone of freedom before trial must be carefully justified. In fact, even the U.S. Supreme Court has warned that pretrial detention should “never be the norm, but rather be a very carefully limited exception” (Abbott’s Bail Agenda Could Swell Texas Jails, Test U.S. Constitution). The Texas Constitution goes even further in protecting the right to bail: it explicitly guarantees that almost all defendants are entitled to bail, with only narrow exceptions (such as capital murder in certain circumstances). This is why Gov. Abbott and his allies must seek a constitutional amendment – the law of Texas itself currently forbids denying bail in most cases (Abbott calls for support in constitutional amendment denying bonds). Efforts to detain people without bond don’t just tweak policy at the margins; they strike at fundamental rights enshrined in our constitutions. 

Abbott’s Push to Deny Bail vs. Constitutional Rights 

The clash between the governor’s agenda and constitutional principles is stark. Abbott’s plan would require courts to jail people accused of violent offenses automatically, without the option of release (Abbott calls for support in constitutional amendment denying bonds) (Abbott calls for support in constitutional amendment denying bonds). In his view, defendants charged with serious crimes should prove their innocence (or at least prove they pose no danger) before they can go free – a dramatic reversal of the usual presumption of innocence (Abbott calls for support in constitutional amendment denying bonds). Criminal defense advocates and civil rights groups quickly pointed out the danger. Shifting the burden onto defendants to “prove that they are not a danger to the community” undermines the presumption of innocence and core due process protections (Abbott calls for support in constitutional amendment denying bonds) (Abbott calls for support in constitutional amendment denying bonds). Brent Mayr, president-elect of the Harris County Criminal Lawyers Association, blasted the governor’s proposal as “unequivocally unconstitutional,” saying it would “diminish people’s rights” and take away our longstanding constitutional protections (Abbott calls for support in constitutional amendment denying bonds). Simply put, holding someone without bond before trial – effectively locking them up and “throwing away the key” – runs contrary to the American justice system’s guarantees of freedom and fair treatment (Abbott calls for support in constitutional amendment denying bonds) (Abbott calls for support in constitutional amendment denying bonds). Even if well-intentioned as a crime-fighting tool, automatic detention oversteps the Constitution, both federal and state. Texas would be punishing people before they’ve had their day in court, which is exactly what our Bill of Rights was designed to prevent. 

The Myth of “Easy Bail” and What the Data Really Shows 

Proponents of no-bail policies claim that letting people out on bond leads to more crime – but the evidence tells a very different story. In Harris County (Houston), criminal justice data undercuts the narrative of a “revolving door” of criminals on bail. In 2024, there were about 1,330 alleged violent crimes committed by individuals while they were free on bond – a tragedy, but that represents less than 1% of roughly 101,900 criminal cases filed that year (Abbott calls for support in constitutional amendment denying bonds). In fact, violent crime by defendants out on bond declined from the higher rates seen during the early pandemic (Abbott calls for support in constitutional amendment denying bonds). These numbers show that the vast majority of people released before trial are not committing new offenses. 

Other jurisdictions’ experiences with bail reform further debunk the idea that money bail is the only way to protect the public. After Harris County implemented reforms in 2019 to automatically release most people charged with low-level, nonviolent misdemeanors without requiring cash bail, multiple studies found that re-arrest rates either stayed the same or actually went down for those defendants (As Greg Abbott blames crime on Houston judges, here’s who profits). Similarly, when states like New Jersey and Illinois essentially abolished cash bail, they saw no increase in people skipping court and no jump in crime tied to bail reform (As Greg Abbott blames crime on Houston judges, here’s who profits). As one sociologist put it, the fear-based public safety arguments against reasonable bail policies are “completely bunk,” unsupported by data (As Greg Abbott blames crime on Houston judges, here’s who profits) (As Greg Abbott blames crime on Houston judges, here’s who profits). 

On the other hand, indiscriminate detention can cause serious harm. Texas already jails about 70,000 people at any given time awaiting trial, and local jails are overcrowded and dangerous. Keeping more accused individuals locked up longer – many of whom are low-risk or simply too poor to pay bond – would swell jail populations further and cost local taxpayers more money to hold them (Abbott calls for support in constitutional amendment denying bonds). The Legislative Budget Board in Austin warned that the pending bail bills could lead to significantly more people jailed pretrial and higher expenses for counties (Abbott calls for support in constitutional amendment denying bonds). At a human level, denying bond means people could lose their jobs, homes, or custody of their children while they sit in jail for months or years awaiting trial. Such outcomes do nothing to improve public safety – they actually weaken our communities and punish people who haven’t been convicted of anything. Advocacy groups like the ACLU of Texas have spoken out, noting that these “reforms” would hit low-income Texans hardest, keeping them stuck in jail in unsafe conditions just because they can’t pay for freedom (Abbott calls for support in constitutional amendment denying bonds). In short, the push to hold more people without bond is a solution in search of a problem – and it creates new problems of its own. The data from Houston and elsewhere shows we can protect public safety without abandoning constitutional safeguards. 

Prisoner in orange uniform holding jail bars

Who Really Profits from Strict Bail Policies? 

If “public safety” isn’t actually served by blanket no-bail policies, one might ask why some officials are so eager to impose them. A closer look at the bail bond industry reveals an unsettling answer: money. The commercial bail bond industry in Texas quietly benefits from the status quo and certain “tough on crime” reforms, and it has financial incentives to shape bail policy. According to an in-depth Houston Chronicle investigation, private bail bond companies in Harris County helped secure releases for defendants facing over $300 million in bail amounts last year – collecting nonrefundable fees typically 10% of those bail totals (As Greg Abbott blames crime on Houston judges, here’s who profits) (As Greg Abbott blames crime on Houston judges, here’s who profits). That means bondsmen pocketed tens of millions of dollars from accused individuals and their families, all for the service of getting them out of jail. It’s a lucrative business made safer by the fact that bail insurers almost never have to pay the full bond; defendants failing to appear in court (which would cost the bondsmen) are exceedingly rare – on the order of 1% of cases (As Greg Abbott blames crime on Houston judges, here’s who profits). And if a client is re-arrested for a new offense while out on bond, the bondsman isn’t penalized at all, since a re-arrest isn’t considered a failure to appear. In fact, as one former bondsman noted, many bail agents “don’t actually mind” if a client picks up new charges – it just means the defendant might need to post a new bond, yielding another round of fees to the bondsman (As Greg Abbott blames crime on Houston judges, here’s who profits). The industry’s bottom line is straightforward: the more people who need to pay for release, the more profit for bail companies. 

It should come as no surprise, then, that the bail bond lobby is actively involved in Texas politics. The Professional Bondsmen of Texas – the main industry group – has thrown its weight behind a package of state legislation to restrict bail and make it harder for defendants to be released on personal bond (As Greg Abbott blames crime on Houston judges, here’s who profits). This lobby isn’t shy about spreading money around either. Campaign finance records show that two of the biggest champions of the no-bail agenda, Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick and Sen. Joan Huffman, received the bondsmen group’s largest donations in recent years (a combined $55,000) (As Greg Abbott blames crime on Houston judges, here’s who profits). Another key lawmaker, Sen. Pete Flores – who chairs the Senate committee overseeing criminal justice – received the bondsmen’s third-largest donation (~$20,000) and counted the bail lobby as a top contributor (As Greg Abbott blames crime on Houston judges, here’s who profits) (As Greg Abbott blames crime on Houston judges, here’s who profits). When politicians push narratives blaming judges for “easy bail” and tout constitutional amendments to jail more people, we should ask: who stands to gain? The undue influence of the bail bond industry is a big part of the answer. 

Ironically, not all of the proposed reforms would hurt the bail industry’s profits. While giving judges more power to deny bail outright might slightly reduce the number of paying clients (in practice, judges rarely set bail for truly dangerous defendants low enough for release anyway (As Greg Abbott blames crime on Houston judges, here’s who profits)), other measures would directly boost bail company business. One bill moving through the legislature would restrict cashless bail for a variety of offenses – even some low-level charges – meaning thousands more people who previously could go free without paying would now have to scrape together money for a bail bond (As Greg Abbott blames crime on Houston judges, here’s who profits). As policy expert Marc Levin noted, limiting personal bonds in this way would “move things in the wrong direction” by simply giving bail companies “more business than they would have otherwise” (As Greg Abbott blames crime on Houston judges, here’s who profits). This approach prioritizes lining the pockets of private bond agents over sensible justice policy (As Greg Abbott blames crime on Houston judges, here’s who profits). Good policy should be about what’s good for the public, not what fattens an industry’s profits (As Greg Abbott blames crime on Houston judges, here’s who profits). Unfortunately, the bail bond lobby’s clout in Austin means that laws can be tilted to serve their interests under the guise of public safety. It’s crucial to shine a light on this dynamic: justice should not be for sale. When crafting bail reform, Texas lawmakers must resist pressure from profit-driven actors and instead focus on fairness, effectiveness, and constitutionality. 

(For more on how bond agreements work and what conditions can be imposed on defendants, see our detailed guide on Bond Conditions and Your Bonding Company.) 

Balancing Public Safety with Constitutional Rights 

Everyone agrees that public safety is paramount – the real question is how to achieve it without trampling on the rights that define our justice system. Victims and communities rightly demand accountability for serious offenders, and no one wants truly dangerous individuals to be recklessly turned loose. But the answer is not to throw out the constitutional baby with the bathwater. We do not need to abolish bail or presume guilt to keep communities safe. Texas Senator Joan Huffman, who authored the no-bail amendment (Senate Joint Resolution 5), said she wants to give judges more authority to detain truly high-risk defendants. In principle, even many reform advocates agree that in limited cases, denying bail can be appropriate – for example, when a judge, after a careful hearing, finds clear evidence that a defendant poses a real, immediate danger. Our legal system already allows for this in narrow circumstances. The problem with the current push in Houston and Texas is that it casts far too wide a net and strips away the careful case-by-case process that due process requires (Abbott’s Bail Agenda Could Swell Texas Jails, Test U.S. Constitution) (Abbott’s Bail Agenda Could Swell Texas Jails, Test U.S. Constitution). As the Vera Institute’s Madeline Bailey noted, the proposals are too broad and lack due process protections – they’d jail people en masse without reliable tools to determine who actually poses a risk (Abbott’s Bail Agenda Could Swell Texas Jails, Test U.S. Constitution) (Abbott’s Bail Agenda Could Swell Texas Jails, Test U.S. Constitution). That means many people who are no threat at all (or even innocent of the charges) could languish in jail for weeks or months (Abbott’s Bail Agenda Could Swell Texas Jails, Test U.S. Constitution) (Abbott’s Bail Agenda Could Swell Texas Jails, Test U.S. Constitution). This approach trades away constitutional rights for a false sense of security. 

A far better solution is to balance safety and rights through measured reforms. Rather than blanket denials of bail, Texas could invest in better pretrial risk assessment and supervision. Judges can be given quality information to distinguish those very few defendants who truly cannot be safely released. Reforms can also require judges to put reasons on the record when setting bail (as Gov. Abbott suggested) without mandating detention in every case (Abbott calls for support in constitutional amendment denying bonds). In Harris County, the Pretrial Services department already monitors thousands of defendants on bond with tools like GPS ankle monitors, check-ins, drug testing, and curfews, helping ensure compliance and court appearances (As Greg Abbott blames crime on Houston judges, here’s who profits) (As Greg Abbott blames crime on Houston judges, here’s who profits). Strengthening these tools and resources can protect the public while respecting the presumption of innocence. Ultimately, we must remember that constitutional protections are not inconveniences – they are the very foundations of justice. As Crime Stoppers’ CEO Rania Mankarious (standing alongside Gov. Abbott) aptly put it, Texas needs bail practices “rooted in a balanced approach that weighs the rights of the accused alongside [the] undeniable rights of the public to be safe” (Abbott calls for support in constitutional amendment denying bonds). We can hold individuals accountable without undermining the values in the U.S. and Texas Constitutions. 

Standing Up for the Constitution and Fair Bail Practices in Houston 

Texans have a proud tradition of valuing individual liberty. The current debate over bail reform in Houston is a defining moment for that tradition. Will we uphold the constitutional safeguards that ensure fairness and due process, or will we give in to fear and political pressure by allowing the government to hold people without bond based solely on an accusation? The Napier Law Firm strongly believes that public safety and constitutional rights must go hand in hand. We stand with those who oppose any erosion of the U.S. Constitution or Texas Constitution in the name of expediency. Hardline proposals to detain people without bail might sound tough, but they ignore both the empirical reality (that release pretrial is overwhelmingly safe in most cases) and our legal bedrock that one is innocent until proven guilty. 

It’s time to reject the false choice between safety and freedom. Texans can be kept safe without sacrificing our fundamental freedoms. That means rejecting unconstitutional no-bond laws and instead pursuing real solutions – ones that target dangerous offenders individually and uphold justice for all. We also must be vigilant about special interests, like the bail bond industry, which distort the conversation to protect their profits. True bail reform should focus on fairness, risk, and constitutional norms, not on how to enrich private bail brokers or score political points. 

Lady Justice holding scales in front of law library

At The Napier Law Firm, we are dedicated to defending the rights of Houstonians and all Texans. If you or a loved one are facing criminal charges or have concerns about a bail or bond issue, our experienced Houston criminal defense attorneys are here to help. We understand the stakes of pretrial freedom and will fight to make sure your rights are protected every step of the way. Don’t let unconstitutional policies or aggressive prosecutors strip away your freedom unfairly. Contact us today to discuss your case – your initial consultation is free, confidential, and could make all the difference in preserving your liberty. Reach out through our online consultation request or call our office anytime. We believe that every Texan deserves a fair shot under the law, and we are ready to stand up for you. 

(For further insights into the bail process, check out our video where attorney George Napier breaks down criminal bonds in Houston and your rights: Understanding Criminal Bonds in Houston (YouTube).) 

References: