A federal court judge dismissed a yearslong fight over Tennessee's bail laws, essentially finding the state did not violate the Tennessee or U.S. Constitutions by preventing judges from considering a defendant's ability to pay when setting bail.
U.S. District Court Judge Thomas L. Parker for the Western District of Tennessee issued the ruling on Aug. 20, just over two years after the lawsuit was filed by bail nonprofit Just City, the American Civil Liberties Union of Tennessee, and a slate of inmates at the Shelby County Jail.
Despite dismissing the lawsuit, Parker said the nonprofits “make some good points” about the alleged “misguided and confusing” aspects of the state’s bail law.
"The record shows that the judicial commissioners have had a hard
time implementing the new statute,” Parker wrote in his 42-page ruling. “The Tennessee General Assembly’s choice to prohibit judicial officers from considering an arrestee’s ‘ability to pay’ bail while at the same time requiring them to consider an arrestee’s ‘employment status and history and financial condition’ is puzzling for some. But puzzling does not always equal unconstitutional.”
The core of the lawsuit is Shelby County’s standing bail order, which came under scrutiny by conservative legislators for requiring the use of a tool that showed how much defendants could afford to pay for bail, and those conservative legislators’ response in the form of a 2024 law barring judges from considering a defendant’s ability to pay.
Republican legislators said the use of the Vera calculator was allowing arrestees to get out of jail and reoffend later. Criminal justice reform advocates, like Just City, said the standing bail order allowed for less detainees within the jail.
Data has indicated the standing bail order did not allow more people to reoffend while on bail. Parker, in his ruling, pointed to a report from the University of Memphis’ Center for Community Research and Evaluation finding “the standing bail order did not result in increases in rearrest rates, broader recidivism, or failures to appear.”
“Tennessee is the only state with a law that prohibits judges from considering ‘ability to pay’ when setting bail,” Just City Executive Director Josh Spickler said in a statement. “…Because of this ruling, more innocent Tennesseans will be jailed while they await their day in court simply because they can’t buy their freedom.”
When and why was the lawsuit filed?
In July 2024, Just City filed the lawsuit against the Shelby County Sheriff’s Office, Shelby County’s judicial commissioners and the presiding judge over General Sessions Court. In Parker’s ruling, he dismissed the judges and judicial commissioners but kept the sheriff’s office as a party to the case.
In the lawsuit, Just City asked a federal judge to find the law unconstitutional and prevent it from being implemented by local criminal justice officials.
Later, two people detained pretrial in the Shelby County Jail — Deangelo Towns and Marshawn Barnes — were added to the lawsuit. They represented themselves, as well as the broader class of inmates detained at the Shelby County Jail.
Both Towns and Barnes said they could not afford their bail, and at no point during their bookings or bail hearings did someone ask or enter information about their ability to pay bail. According to Parker’s ruling, it was “undisputed” that the bail law resulted in more people being kept in jail, higher bail amounts, and “more wealth-based detention.”
The lawsuit alleged the bail law was too vague, that it prevented arrestees from an opportunity to be heard on bail in a meaningful way and caused wealth-based detention in violation of the equal protection clause.
Parker, in his ruling, said the vagueness question was “close.” In May, attorneys argued the law’s semantics, with the state saying a defendant’s “financial condition” could be considered when setting bail but their “ability to pay” could not be. In the state’s eyes, “ability to pay” reflected the current liquidity of a defendant while “financial condition” looked at all of their assets.
In short, the state argued a defendant may not be able to pay bail with the cash in their bank account, or their family’s bank accounts, but might be able to afford it if they were to liquidate some assets, like selling their house or car.
Parker found that argument compelling, saying there was “nothing vague lurking in this language.”
He similarly found that defendants have plenty of opportunity to appeal the bail that is set for them under the new bail law, finding they could talk about financial conditions when arguing for lower bail amounts.
And, despite finding there was undisputed evidence of more “wealth-based detention” inside the jail, Parker ruled enforcing the bail law did not cause wealth-based detention in violation of the equal protection clause.
“In other words they have not shown that HB 1719 requires bail setters to treat the indigent ‘systematically worse‘ solely because of their [lack] of financial resources — and not for some legitimate state interest,” Parker wrote.
It is not clear whether Just City and the ACLU of Tennessee plan to appeal the ruling.
Lucas Finton covers crime, policing, jails, the courts and criminal justice policy for The Commercial Appeal. He can be reached by phone or email: (901)208-3922 and Lucas.Finton@commercialappeal.com, and followed on X @LucasFinton.
This article originally appeared on Memphis Commercial Appeal: Lawsuit over TN's ability to pay bail law dismissed by federal judge
