Criminal Justice

Daves v. Dallas County, Texas, et al.

In Daves v. Dallas County, the en banc Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit is considering whether Dallas County’s use of a secured money bail system violates the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Case Summary

Dallas County has a policy and practice of using secured money bail to impose pretrial detention on criminal defendants too poor to pay.  The plaintiffs in this case were all arrested in the County and denied pretrial release because they could not pay the prescribed cash bail.  Plaintiffs sued the County in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, claiming that this use of money bail results in only the most impoverished arrestees being detained and thus violates the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Constitution.  The district court granted, in part, the plaintiffs’ request for a preliminary injunction and a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed that decision. The Fifth Circuit subsequently decided to rehear the case en banc.

CAC filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the Fifth Circuit on behalf of the plaintiffs, arguing that Dallas County’s system of secured money bail violates the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee of equal justice under the law to rich and poor alike.  Our brief explains that the County’s policy cannot be squared with the Fourteenth Amendment’s universal guarantees of due process and equal protection.  The County’s bail policy denies the most basic form of liberty to those unable to pay, exerts coercive pressure on defendants charged with misdemeanors to plead guilty in order to be released, and makes it harder for others to prepare a defense.  Using the bail system in this way perverts the historic use of bail as a mechanism for ensuring pretrial liberty for persons charged with a crime.  Our brief further argues that the County’s policy is completely unnecessary in light of the numerous alternative approaches that serve the government’s interests in a defendant’s appearance at trial and in community safety while still respecting the constitutional guarantees of equal protection and due process enshrined in the Fourteenth Amendment.

Case Timeline

  • April 5, 2021

    CAC files amicus curiae brief

    5th Cir. Amicus Br.
  • May 26, 2021

    The en banc Fifth Circuit will hear oral argument

More from Criminal Justice

Criminal Justice
March 25, 2021

Supreme Court expands meaning of ‘seizure’ under 4th Amendment

Los Angeles Times
WASHINGTON —  The Supreme Court on Thursday expanded the Constitution’s protection against an “unreasonable seizure,” ruling...
By: Elizabeth B. Wydra, By David G. Savage
Criminal Justice
U.S. Supreme Court

Terry v. United States

In Terry v. United States, the Supreme Court is considering whether certain individuals sentenced for low-level crack-cocaine offenses prior to enactment of the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 are eligible for reduced sentences under the...
Criminal Justice
U.S. Supreme Court

Lange v. California

In Lange v. California, the Supreme Court is considering whether the Fourth Amendment permits the police, in all cases, to pursue an individual into a private home without a warrant while attempting to make a...
Criminal Justice
November 2, 2020

Supreme Court blocks injured officer’s suit against leader of Black Lives Matter rally

LA Times
WASHINGTON —  The Supreme Court on Monday set aside a ruling by a panel of conservative...
By: Brianne J. Gorod, By David G. Savage
Criminal Justice
August 19, 2020

OP-ED: Roberts’ Rules: How the Chief Justice Could Rein in Police Abuse of Power

Take Care
A theme of Chief Justice John Roberts’ opinions this past term is that courts should...
By: David H. Gans
Criminal Justice
August 19, 2020

Protesters Demand the Protection our Constitution Promises. Courts are Beginning to Listen.

This summer, protesters around the country have demanded that our elected and community leaders pay...
By: Clare Riva