Federal Grants Threatened: New Bill Forces States to Hold 'Dangerousness Hearings' Before Releasing Defendants

This bill, officially titled the "No Free Pass for Felons Act of 2025," is straightforward: it uses federal grant money as leverage to force state and local governments to change how they handle pretrial release for certain defendants. Specifically, if a state or local government wants to keep receiving full funding from major federal programs—like the Byrne Justice Assistance Grants (JAG) or the Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) grants—they must certify that they have policies prohibiting the release of a "covered defendant" on personal recognizance or unsecured bond without a mandatory court hearing first.

The Federal Funding Hammer

This isn't a suggestion; it’s a mandate backed by cash. If a state or local jurisdiction fails to adopt these specific pretrial release policies, the Attorney General can slash their grant money down to 85 percent of what they would normally receive. This applies to several key funding streams, including the JAG grants, which fund everything from drug task forces to court technology, and COPS grants, which help police departments hire officers. For a city that relies on these funds for essential public safety services, losing 15% is a serious financial hit. The bill gives jurisdictions 18 months after enactment to get their policies in line before the funding cuts kick in.

Who Is a 'Covered Defendant'?

This is where the bill gets broad. A "covered defendant" isn't just someone charged with murder or armed robbery. The definition includes three groups:

1. Anyone charged with a "covered violent offense." This offense is defined broadly as anything that involves "the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against a person or property." Think about that definition: it could cover everything from a minor scuffle to a car theft where force was threatened.
2. Anyone charged with any offense (even shoplifting or a minor traffic violation) if they have a prior conviction for a covered violent offense from a separate incident.
3. Anyone charged with any offense while they are already on probation, parole, or supervised release for a covered violent offense.

For anyone in these categories, the jurisdiction must mandate a "dangerousness hearing" before the defendant can be released on an unsecured bond—the kind of release that doesn’t require them to post cash. During this hearing, a judge must make a written finding that the release conditions will reasonably assure the defendant's appearance and the safety of the community. This effectively limits judicial discretion and forces a more formal, high-stakes process for a huge swath of defendants.

The Real-World Impact on Courts and Communities

For the average person, this bill means two things. First, if you live in a city that relies on federal grants, your local police department might be forced to adopt these specific pretrial policies to avoid losing critical funding. Second, this bill will immediately increase the workload on already strained court systems. Every "covered defendant"—including someone charged with a low-level offense who happens to have an old violent conviction—will now require a formal, recorded dangerousness hearing. Public defenders and prosecutors will face massive new caseloads as they prepare for these mandatory hearings, which could slow down the entire justice system.

Furthermore, the bill mandates extensive data collection. Jurisdictions must track and publish data annually on judges’ release decisions, rearrests for violent offenses, and failures to appear, broken down by the type of pretrial release. While better data is usually a good thing, setting up this system is an administrative headache that adds significant cost and complexity to local courts, all under the threat of losing 15% of their federal safety net.