States Rapidly Advancing Wide-Ranging Bail Reform
As the 2026 legislative session continues, policymakers are working to close perceived gaps in pretrial release systems that allow dangerous individuals to reenter communities.
After years of witnessing the cashless bail trend, states across the country are rapidly seeking to recalibrate their bail laws by prioritizing public‑safety protections and tightening judicial discretion in pretrial release decisions.
High-profile crimes have intensified the effort. In North Carolina, the killing of Iryna Zarutska on Charlotte public transport by a repeat offender released without bail led to the enactment of “Iryna’s Law” just months after the incident. The new law requires judges to consider prior dangerous behavior and mental health history in bail decisions. However, North Carolina is not alone, as this legislative session marks a decisive response on the part of legislatures to address inadequate pretrial release policies and crime trends observed throughout the U.S.
More modest bail reform efforts often require judges to incorporate structured risk assessments and public safety considerations into bail determinations. In Oklahoma, for example, SB1618 mandates the use of validated pretrial risk assessment tools and requires courts to document any deviations from those assessments.
Similarly, Ohio HB741 would require judges to evaluate an offender’s likelihood of reoffending, particularly in cases involving violent crimes. SF2399 in Iowa takes a related approach by establishing enforceable minimum bond amounts for serious offenses and requiring courts to justify any reductions below those thresholds. Florida went a step further, recently that would create new penalties for violations of pretrial release conditions. West Virginia took a more measured approach, recently adopting a law prohibiting the issuance of personal recognizance bonds in felony cases, effectively requiring monetary bail.
Several states are also seeking to expand judicial discretionary authority to deny bail. The Alabama House passed legislation that would enable judges to deny bail for crimes such as murder and kidnapping. Utah’s priority bail reform measure would have allowed for the denial of release on personal recognizance when evidence suggests a significant risk to public safety. These types of reforms are not only nonpartisan but are priority efforts for both red and blue states, as illustrated by Delaware—a state with a
Categorically limiting or eliminating bail eligibility for specified crimes is the most ambitious measure, and several states are doing so through constitutional amendment. Indiana and Tennessee’s ballot initiatives are headed to their voters this fall, asking them whether the right to bail should be removed for a broad set of dangerous felony offenses when clear and convincing evidence shows that no release conditions can ensure community safety. Similarly, Texas successfully amended its constitution last fall, expanding the denial of bail for certain violent and sexual offenses.
Taken together, these efforts reflect a clear counterreaction to more permissive bail frameworks associated with earlier trends of cashless bail seen in the past decade. While approaches vary—from broadening procedural discretion to imposing constitutional restrictions—the underlying trend is consistent: states are seeking to prioritize public safety by closing perceived loopholes in pretrial release systems.
ALEC has also prioritized this issue in recent months, as legislators continue to seek and develop resolutions to effectively reduce violent crime. The ALEC model Stopping Early Clearance of Unfit, Repeat, and Endangering Defendants (SECURE) Act prohibits release on recognizance or unsecured bond for individuals with a recent violent felony conviction who also have a prior violent felony or history of bail jumping or escape. This provides a balanced and meaningful step states can take to strengthen their justice systems and reduce violent crime.
As the 2026 legislative session continues, policymakers are working to close perceived gaps in pretrial release systems that allow dangerous individuals to reenter communities. Despite the varied approaches, states are executing a shared common goal: balancing public safety with respect for individual adjudicatory rights.