OPINION: New White House executive order casts a shadow on Nevada’s important bail reforms
Summary
M. Eve Hanan, a criminal law academic and former public defender, warns that a recent White House executive order targeting so-called “cashless bail” threatens to undermine Nevada’s carefully crafted bail reforms. The order threatens to cut federal funding from jurisdictions that have substantially eliminated cash bail, effectively pressuring states and local courts to retain monetary bail systems.
Hanan recounts a client story from her public defence days to illustrate how cash bail punishes poverty and keeps low-income people behind bars pretrial. She explains that Nevada already uses a hybrid approach: judges must consider ability to pay and prefer non‑monetary conditions of release; monetary bail is only to be set when necessary to ensure appearance or safety (guided by a 2020 Nevada Supreme Court decision and 2021 legislative changes).
The piece notes gaps in Nevada’s data on pretrial detention and urges continued collection and analysis. Hanan summarises evidence from multiple studies showing that jurisdictions adopting cashless or reduced-cash pretrial systems did not see increases in crime and that pretrial detention can have harmful long‑term consequences. She argues Nevada should resist federal pressure that risks chilling judges from using non‑monetary conditions and should continue to limit pretrial detention as a “carefully limited exception.”
Source
Key Points
- The White House executive order threatens to withhold federal funds from jurisdictions that have substantially eliminated cash bail, pressuring them to keep monetary bail.
- Nevada operates a hybrid system: judges must consider a defendant’s ability to pay and prefer non‑monetary conditions before setting monetary bail (guided by a 2020 Nevada Supreme Court ruling and 2021 reforms).
- Cash bail tends to detain low‑income people pretrial while wealthier defendants can buy release; this produces unfair outcomes and social harms.
- Research cited indicates bail reform has not driven increases in crime; some studies show slight reductions or no change in violent crime after reforms.
- Pretrial detention has serious downstream consequences (loss of housing, employment, custody) and may increase future offending for those detained pretrial.
- Nevada lacks complete data on who remains jailed due to unaffordable bail; collecting and analysing this data is essential to measure reform effectiveness.
- Hanan urges Nevada not to be cowed by federal pressure that could chill judges from using non‑monetary conditions and from enforcing the presumption of innocence.
Why should I read this?
Short version: if you care about fairness in the courts or what state policy actually means on the ground, this cuts through the political noise. It explains why the federal order is more about signalling than public safety and why Nevada’s measured reforms matter. We’ve done the legwork — here’s the important bit: don’t let funding threats erase reforms that limit jailing people just because they’re poor.
Context and Relevance
This opinion piece matters for anyone following criminal justice policy, state–federal relations or civil liberties. It places Nevada’s reforms in the context of a long legal and legislative process (Nevada Supreme Court guidance and 2021 statutes) and frames the executive order as a potential chill factor rather than a substantive improvement to public safety.
Hanan points to national studies (Brennan Center, New Jersey research, Texas analyses) showing bail reform does not meaningfully increase crime and highlights the social costs of pretrial detention. Her recommendation: continue improving data collection, defend individualized, ability‑to‑pay assessments, and preserve non‑monetary release conditions that protect public safety without punishing poverty.
Author note
M. Eve Hanan teaches criminal law and procedure and directs a criminal litigation clinic at the UNLV Boyd School of Law. Previously she practised criminal defence at trial and appellate levels in Boston, Baltimore and Washington, D.C. The views expressed are her own.