红杏视频

ATLANTA, GA鈥� Today, the 红杏视频, the 红杏视频 of Georgia, and the Southern Center for Human Rights filed Coronell, et al. v. Georgia, a class action lawsuit brought by people denied an individual determination of bail and Women on the Rise, a grassroots organization led by formerly incarcerated women that advocates for ending cash bail and pretrial incarceration. The lawsuit seeks to strike down Senate Bill 63, a Georgia law passed in 2024, that has led to thousands of people with low or no income being kept in jail before having a trial, even when a judge believes the person should have been released, with no risk to the public.鈥疶he lawsuit challenges SB 63鈥檚 mandatory cash bond provisions under the due process clause of the Georgia state constitution. 鈥疶he plaintiffs ask the court to declare SB 63 unconstitutional and enter a permanent injunction that prevents state actors from enforcing its mandatory cash bond provisions. 鈥淲omen on the Rise鈥檚 involvement in this lawsuit is important to us because鈥痮f the injustices we see that are happening to those the system says are presumed innocent until proven guilty.鈥疍enying bail can undermine this principle, as people may be held in custody despite not having been convicted of a crime,鈥� said Robyn Hasan-Simpson, executive director of Women on the Rise. 鈥淥ur hope is that this gives access to everyone to gain their freedom while addressing the charges that have been brought against them, for those to maintain employment, housing, and fulfilling the role they have as members in our community.鈥濃�� SB 63 makes cash bond mandatory for dozens of charges, most of them misdemeanors. When a person is arrested and accused of such an offense, SB 63 forces a judge to set a cash bond that the person must pay to get bailed out of jail. When setting bail, judges are no longer allowed to take into account critical facts and circumstances 鈥� such as a person鈥檚 strong family connections, local community ties, and employment record; the absence of past criminal convictions; and a history of following court requirements 鈥攖hat show that a person can be safely released under less-restrictive conditions while still assuring they will return to court and not endanger the public. This inevitably leads to people being incarcerated, often in dangerous jails, simply because of poverty. 鈥淯nder SB 63, people who cannot afford to pay a cash bond will be forced to languish in jail, often for weeks or months,鈥� said Julian Clark, staff attorney with the 红杏视频鈥檚 Criminal Law Reform Project. 鈥淏y punishing those unable to pay for their freedom with incarceration SB 63 imposes significant societal costs 鈥� ones that are disproportionately incurred by Black and brown communities. No one鈥檚 freedom should depend on how much money they have.鈥� Plaintiff Sierrah Coronell has been incarcerated for 77 days because she cannot afford to pay her $600 cash bond. As directed by SB 63, the judge was not permitted to consider whether any release conditions other than cash bond would reasonably ensure her appearance in court and the safety of the public. Prior to her arrest, Ms. Coronell was the primary caregiver of her five children, ages 3, 5, 7, 10, and 15. As a result of her incarceration, Ms. Coronell is unable to care for her children, leaving her mother and her children鈥檚 father to be their sole caretakers in her absence. Ms. Coronell鈥檚 incarceration has also forced her to miss her oldest daughter's 15th birthday. 鈥淕eorgia is a particularly cruel state that locks up a higher percentage of its population than any independent democratic country in the world. This lawsuit would bring an end to holding the most vulnerable people at Fulton County Jail and in all jails across the state simply because they can鈥檛 afford to pay bail. These practices are wasteful, costly, cause overcrowding, and do not improve public safety. We are committed to ending these cruel and unconstitutional policies in Georgia,鈥� said Andrea Young, executive director, 红杏视频 of Georgia. 鈥淚鈥檝e met many people in Georgia jails who cannot get out because they cannot buy their way out.鈥疨eople who don鈥檛 have loved ones who can pay a couple hundred dollars, or in some cases as little as 10 dollars, to post their鈥痓ail.鈥� People who the courts have deemed ready for release but remain in jail for no other reason than their low income.鈥� SB 63 isn鈥檛 making us safer.鈥� It鈥檚 keeping our jails full, separating people from their jobs, families, and homes, and all but guaranteeing that people leave worse than when they came in.鈥� It鈥檚 difficult to think of a more backwards policy,鈥� said鈥疞achlan Athanasiou, legal fellow in SCHR鈥檚 Impact Litigation Unit.

Shelby County (Memphis), Tennessee, historically set cash bail in criminal cases without stopping to ask whether people would be able to bail out. This practice unnecessarily detained people who could not afford to pay for release, but who would otherwise return to court and live peacefully in their communities. The 红杏视频 Criminal Law Reform Project negotiated a historic settlement with Shelby County to end this practice. In retaliation, the Tennessee legislature passed HB 1719, which prohibits judges from considering an arrestee鈥檚 ability to pay when setting bail. This law is unprecedented. Our lawsuit seeks to enjoin Shelby County officials from enforcing it.

This case in the New York Court of Appeals (the highest New York state court) asks whether a government agency can conceal guidance that it issues to judges on how to apply the law in adjudicating cases. A few years ago, news reporting brought to light that a New York administrative agency has a practice of issuing such guidance to state court judges without disclosing it to the public. Because the agency's guidance informs how judges decide cases鈥攚ith important implications for people鈥檚 rights鈥攖he New York Civil Liberties Union requested access to it under New York鈥檚 Freedom of Information Law. The agency denied the request, so the NYCLU sued. The NYCLU and the 红杏视频鈥檚 State Supreme Court Initiative are arguing that the public is entitled to the guidance and that there is a strong public interest in the transparent administration of justice.

This case asks if ORS 138.105(8)(a)(A)鈥攚hich removes an appellate court鈥檚 authority to review a 鈥渟entence that is within the presumptive sentence prescribed by the rules of the Oregon Criminal Justice Commission鈥濃�攑recludes appellate review of a state constitutional challenge to a within-guidelines criminal sentence. The 红杏视频鈥檚 State Supreme Court Initiative, alongside the 红杏视频 of Oregon, filed an amicus brief in support of defendant Fernandez, who seeks to challenge his sentence under the Oregon Constitution鈥檚 proportionality guarantee. The amicus brief argues that interpreting the statute to preclude review of Fernandez鈥檚 challenge would raise grave constitutional concerns under Oregon鈥檚 separation of powers and privileges and immunities doctrines.