Judge blocks Georgia law restricting individuals or groups to posting 3 bonds annually

Judge blocks Georgia law restricting individuals or groups to posting 3 bonds annually

A federal judge has temporarily blocked a Georgia law that restricts organizations from helping people pay bail, allowing them to be released while their criminal cases are pending. U.S. District Judge Victoria Marie Calvert issued the temporary restraining order on Friday, halting part of Senate Bill 63 from taking effect on Monday. The judge’s decision delays the law for 14 days and requires lawyers to present arguments on whether the law should be stayed until a lawsuit over the measure is resolved.

The blocked section of the law limits individuals and organizations to posting no more than three cash bonds annually unless they meet the stringent requirements for bail bond companies. These requirements include passing background checks, paying fees, holding a business license, securing the local sheriff’s approval, and establishing a cash escrow account or other form of collateral.

Judge Calvert is allowing other parts of the law to take effect, including provisions that require cash bail for people charged with 30 additional crimes before they can be released from pretrial detention. This list includes 18 offenses that are often misdemeanors, such as failure to appear in court for a traffic citation.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Georgia and the Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection at Georgetown University Law Center filed the lawsuit on June 21. They represent Barred Business Foundation, an Atlanta-based nonprofit that facilitates campaigns to pay cash bail, as well as two individuals from Athens who run a charitable bail fund in association with their church.

The lawsuit argues that the restrictions on bail funds are unconstitutional and requests that the judge prevent their enforcement. The complaint states that the law “imposes what are arguably the most severe restrictions on charitable bail funds in the nation,” and describes the imposition of these restrictions as “incredibly burdensome — perhaps insurmountable — and both irrational and arbitrary.” The lawsuit asserts that if the statute is allowed to take effect, “these restrictions will effectively eliminate charitable bail funds in Georgia.”

Earlier this month, the Bail Project, a national nonprofit that helps thousands of low-income people post bond, announced that it had closed its Atlanta branch because of the law. Cory Isaacson, ACLU of Georgia legal director, expressed relief at the judge’s ruling, stating, “We are encouraged by the judge’s ruling and its recognition that this law is unnecessary, harmful, and likely unconstitutional. We are relieved for our plaintiffs and the many people across the state that they serve. It’s unconscionable that people doing charitable bail work would face criminal penalties simply because they are helping people who are languishing in jail because of their poverty and have no other means of relief.”

A spokesperson for Attorney General Chris Carr did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The state argued in a brief filed Thursday that the law does not violate the plaintiffs’ rights of free speech and association because it only regulates non-expressive conduct. The state contends that the challengers can still criticize Georgia’s cash bail system and that paying bail does not inherently convey any message.

Supporters of the measure argue that well-meaning organizations should have no issue with following the same rules as bail bond companies. The measure comes amid conservative efforts to restrict community bail funds, which were used to post bond for people involved in 2020 protests against racial injustice and, more recently, for protesters opposed to a public safety training center being built near Atlanta.

State prosecutors have noted that some “Stop Cop City” protesters had the Atlanta Solidarity Fund’s phone number written on their bodies, which they allege was evidence that the protesters intended to engage in activities that could lead to their arrest. Three of the bail fund’s leaders were charged with charity fraud last year and are among 61 individuals indicted on racketeering charges.

The court’s temporary restraining order prevents Georgia’s government from enforcing Section 4 of Senate Bill 63, which would have gone into effect on July 1. The parties involved in the case must contact the court by July 3 to decide whether the matter should be set for a hearing, if the court should receive additional evidence, or if the court should enter a preliminary injunction based solely on the initial hearing.

The ACLU of Georgia and the Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection at Georgetown University filed the complaint representing an Atlanta-based nonprofit and two other individuals. The suit indicates that the organization has a series of programs to support “justice-impacted people,” including a bailout campaign for people who are detained pretrial on bail they can’t afford. The two individuals listed as plaintiffs in the case help run a charitable fund at an Athens church.

Cory Isaacson, ACLU of Georgia Legal Director, stated, “We are encouraged by the judge’s ruling and its recognition that this law is unnecessary, harmful, and likely unconstitutional. It’s unconscionable that people doing charitable bail work would face criminal penalties simply because they are helping people who are languishing in jail because of their poverty and have no other means of relief.”

The lawsuit argues that the bill “severely restricts individuals, groups, and entities from engaging in charitable bail work — paying for bail for those detained solely because they are impoverished” and calls it “arguably the most severe restrictions on charitable bail funds in the nation.” According to the bill, no individual or group would be able to post more than three cash bonds per year. Additionally, every person or group soliciting donations for charitable bail funds must meet the same requirements as any professional surety bail company, which is not limited to the number of bonds it can post.

If the section goes into law, anyone who violates it may be subject to misdemeanor charges.

Source: Associated Press, Fox News

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top