“Confirmed Judges, Confirmed Fears” is a blog series documenting the harmful impact of President Trump’s judges on Americans’ rights and liberties. It includes judges nominated in both his first and second terms.
What’s at stake in this case?
A nonprofit group that helps provide bail for poor people challenged a Florida state law that cuts funds it can use.
What happened in this case?
The nonprofit Tallahassee Bail Fund helps poor people charged with crimes to post bail allowing them to get out of jail before trial. State law “significantly reduces” money available to the Fund, however, by mandating that bail funds be used to pay any fines owed by someone who is then convicted before the balance is returned to the Fund. The Fund filed suit in federal court, contending that the state law is unconstitutional under the Eighth Amendment as imposing excessive bail.
A district court agreed that mandating payment of outstanding fines with bail money violated the Eighth Amendment as constituting excessive bail, and held that the Bail Fund had third-party standing to bring that claim on behalf of future detainees. Accordingly, after trial, it issued a permanent injunction against requiring payment of fines with bail funds.
On appeal, Trump judge Kevin Newsom and George W Bush district judge Timothy Corrigan issued an unsigned opinion that reversed the trial court ruling and dissolved the injunction in favor of the Bail Fund. Obama judge Adalberto Jordan dissented in the June ruling in Tallahassee Bail Fund v Clerk.
What was the rationale of Trump judge Newsom and George W Bush judge Corrigan?
All three judges agreed that the Bail Fund suffered injury in fact and had Article III standing. But Trump judge Newsom and George W Bush judge Corrigan ruled that the Bail Fund had not shown that it had third-party standing to defend the rights of future clients. The majority maintained that prior case law required that the Fund show a “hindrance” preventing future Fund clients from raising their rights on their own, and that the Fund had not done so.
Why did Judge Jordan dissent?
Initially, Judge Jordan stated, the “hindrance” requirement should not apply in this case at all because of the direct effect of the state law on the Fund’s own use of its money. Even if it does apply, Jordan went on, the “hindrance” requirement is satisfied by the “significant procedural and practical obstacles” that criminal defendants would face in raising the arguments. These include, he explained, the fact that the money actually belongs to the Fund and not the defendant, ripeness barriers to bringing a challenge prior to conviction, case law suggesting that an excessive bail claim becomes moot after a conviction, and the fact that no successful challenge to the law has been brought in state court. The district court ruling, Jordan conclude, was “undoubtedly correct” and should have been affirmed.
Why is the ruling harmful?
The decision made possible by Trump judge Newsom obviously harms the Bail Fund and its ability to help poor people charged with crime. It also sets a bad precedent concerning third-party standing, particularly in the Eleventh Circuit, including Florida, Georgie and Alabama. It also illustrates the importance of our federal courts to health, welfare and justice and the significance of having fair-minded judges on the federal bench.