Rules Committee · Nov 19, 2025
H.Amdt. 109: Its purpose is not yet published.
Adopted
With no one objecting, no names recorded
Elise Stefanik (R-NY)
District of Columbia Cash Bail Reform Act of 2025
H.R. 5214 · House bill Crime and Law Enforcement
A Republican bill with 3 Republican cosponsors · See all 3 cosponsors
Last activity — Received in the Senate.
Passed one chamber, waiting for the other to take it up
Passed one chamber, and the other has not yet sent it to a committee or put it on its calendar.
The other chamber will hand it to a committee, place it on its calendar, or leave it where it is. Nothing has been decided, and a bill can sit here indefinitely.
Its path through Congress
- Introduced
- Passed House 237–179
- Awaiting Senate
What this bill would do
The District of Columbia Cash Bail Reform Act of 2025 requires mandatory detention before trial and after conviction for individuals charged with dangerous crimes or crimes of violence. It modifies the definitions of burglary and robbery to specify first-degree offenses or those involving dangerous weapons. Additionally, the bill mandates the use of secured appearance bonds, or cash bail, for individuals charged with public safety or order crimes. These public safety crimes include offenses such as rioting, stalking, and obstruction of justice. The act applies to individuals charged with offenses in the District of Columbia starting 30 days after its enactment.
Yes
- Scored +4
Would people in cities be better off under this?
Aims to increase public safety and reduce crime in the urban environment of D.C.
- Scored +4
Does this give the federal government more power?
The federal government is intervening in the local judicial codes of the District of Columbia.
- Scored +3
Would business owners be better off under this?
Increased focus on preventing property destruction and rioting may benefit local business owners.
The opposite· 3 of 10
- Scored -8
Would households on low incomes be better off under this?
Mandatory secured bonds create a significant financial barrier to pretrial release for the poor.
- Scored -7
Does this protect the right to fair treatment by the courts?
The removal of judicial discretion for pretrial detention limits individual due process considerations.
- Scored -6
Does this shorten or soften prison sentences?
The bill removes judicial discretion for pretrial release, leading to more mandatory detention.
What Congress actually voted on
One recorded vote has been taken on this bill.
- The House: the vote on whether to pass the bill This is the real decision in this chamber. Passing here sends the bill to the other chamber, which must pass it too before it can go to the President. Passed 237 yes · 179 no
11/19/2025 · Roll call 298 · recorded as “On Passage”
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
Increased Public Safety: By requiring mandatory pretrial detention for those charged with dangerous crimes or crimes of violence, the bill aims to keep these individuals off the streets before their trial (Section 2(a)).
-
Accountability for Public Order Offenses: The requirement for a secured appearance bond for public safety or order crimes, such as rioting or destruction of property, ensures a financial incentive for individuals to appear in court (Section 3(a) and 3(b)(1)).
-
Surety Enforcement: The bill allows sureties to arrest individuals who are released on a bond and fail to appear, ensuring they are promptly delivered to a United States marshal (Section 3(a)(3)).
Potential Negative Impacts for People
-
Removal of Judicial Discretion: Judicial officers are required to order detention for anyone charged with a crime of violence or a dangerous crime, removing the ability to consider individual circumstances for pretrial release (Section 2(a)(2)).
-
Financial Burden for Low-Level Offenses: Individuals charged with "public safety or order crimes," which include some forms of burglary or robbery not involving dangerous weapons, must provide a secured appearance bond (money or property) to be released, which may be a burden for those without financial means (Section 3(a)(1) and 3(b)(1)).
-
Stricter Detention Rules: The bill removes certain murder offenses and crimes of violence from standard pretrial release procedures, limiting the options for those seeking release while awaiting trial (Section 2(e)(1) and 2(e)(2)).
Groups and Interests Ranking
Every group the model scored this bill for, from -10 to +10. Tap or hover a score for the reason it gave.
- Demographic And Interest Groups
- Would people in cities be better off under this? — Aims to increase public safety and reduce crime in the urban environment of D.C. Would business owners be better off under this? — Increased focus on preventing property destruction and rioting may benefit local business owners. Would households on low incomes be better off under this? — Mandatory secured bonds create a significant financial barrier to pretrial release for the poor. Would Black Americans be better off under this? — Overrepresentation in the justice system means this group is disproportionately affected by mandatory detention and cash bail. Would Hispanic Americans be better off under this? — Overrepresentation in the justice system means this group is disproportionately affected by mandatory detention and cash bail. Would immigrants be better off under this? — Immigrants may lack the financial resources or local sureties needed for secured appearance bonds. Would students be better off under this? — Students may be more likely to be charged with public order offenses and lack funds for bail. Would people in their twenties and thirties be better off under this? — Young adults are more likely to be affected by public order charges such as rioting.
- Social Issues And Justice
- Does this shorten or soften prison sentences? — The bill removes judicial discretion for pretrial release, leading to more mandatory detention. Does this narrow racial gaps in how people are treated? — Cash bail requirements often disproportionately impact marginalized communities and lower-income minority groups. Is this likely to lift people out of poverty? — Mandatory cash bail can exacerbate poverty for low-income defendants.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this give the federal government more power? — The federal government is intervening in the local judicial codes of the District of Columbia. Does this protect the right to fair treatment by the courts? — The removal of judicial discretion for pretrial detention limits individual due process considerations.
- 11/20/2025
- Received in the Senate.
- 11/19/2025
- Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
- Passed/agreed to in House: On passage Passed by the Yeas and Nays: 237 - 179 (Roll no. 298). (text of amendment in the nature of a substitute: CR H4796)
- On passage Passed by the Yeas and Nays: 237 - 179 (Roll no. 298). (text of amendment in the nature of a substitute: CR H4796)
- Considered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H4805-4806)
- POSTPONED PROCEEDINGS - At the conclusion of debate on H.R. 5214, the Chair put the question on passage of the bill and by voice vote announced the ayes had prevailed. Mr. Garcia (CA) demanded the yeas and nays and the Chair postponed further proceedings until a time to be announced.
- The previous question was ordered pursuant to the rule.
- DEBATE - The House proceeded with one hour of debate on H.R. 5214.
- Rule provides for consideration of S.J. Res. 80, H.J. Res. 130, H.J. Res. 131, H. Con. Res. 58, H.R. 1949, H.R. 3109, H.R. 5107 and H.R. 5214. The resolution provides for consideration of S.J. Res. 80, H.J. Res. 130, H.J. Res. 131, H. Con. Res. 58, H.R. 1949, H.R. 3109, H.R. 5107, and H.R. 5214 under a closed rule with one hour of general debate on each measure. The resolution also provides for one motion to recommit on H.J. Res. 130, H.J. Res. 131, H.R. 1949, H.R. 3109, H.R. 5107, and H.R. 5214, and one motion to commit S.J. Res. 80.
- Considered under the provisions of rule H. Res. 879. (consideration: CR H4796-4800)
- 11/18/2025
- Rule H. Res. 879 passed House.
- 11/17/2025
- Rules Committee Resolution H. Res. 879 Reported to House. Rule provides for consideration of S.J. Res. 80, H.J. Res. 130, H.J. Res. 131, H. Con. Res. 58, H.R. 1949, H.R. 3109, H.R. 5107 and H.R. 5214. The resolution provides for consideration of S.J. Res. 80, H.J. Res. 130, H.J. Res. 131, H. Con. Res. 58, H.R. 1949, H.R. 3109, H.R. 5107, and H.R. 5214 under a closed rule with one hour of general debate on each measure. The resolution also provides for one motion to recommit on H.J. Res. 130, H.J. Res. 131, H.R. 1949, H.R. 3109, H.R. 5107, and H.R. 5214, and one motion to commit S.J. Res. 80.
- 9/30/2025
- Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. H. Rept. 119-315.
- Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 269.
- 9/10/2025
- Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held
- Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by the Yeas and Nays: 26 - 19.
- 9/9/2025
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 9/8/2025
- Referred to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
- 2 Cosponsors added.
- Introduced in House
John JamesRepublican · Michigan
Tim MooreRepublican · North Carolina
Troy NehlsRepublican · Texas