Mark Harris (R-NC)
No Funding for Lawless Jurisdictions Act
A Republican bill with 15 Republican cosponsors · See all 15 cosponsors
Last activity — Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
In committee
Introduced and handed to a committee in the chamber it started in.
The committee holds it, and most bills are never heard from again. A hearing or a committee vote would be news; silence is the usual outcome, and it kills the bill without anyone voting against it.
Its path through Congress
- Introduced
- In Committee
What this bill would do
This bill, titled the "No Funding for Lawless Jurisdictions Act," proposes amendments to the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968. It aims to restrict eligibility for certain crime control grants based on specific local policies and budget decisions. Specifically, it prohibits grant awards to states or local governments that substantially limit cash bail for covered offenses or allow personal recognizance release for convicted felons. Additionally, it prevents grants from being awarded to urbanized local governments that have reduced law enforcement agency budgets, unless caused by a proportionate budget shortfall.
Yes
- Scored +4
Does this give the federal government more power?
The bill increases federal oversight by using grant eligibility to influence local bail and law enforcement budgeting decisions.
- Scored +2
Does this reduce what the federal government spends?
The bill limits federal grant awards to specific state and local jurisdictions.
The opposite· 3 of 7
- Scored -4
Would people in cities be better off under this?
The bill specifically targets urbanized local governments for grant reductions if they cut law enforcement budgets.
- Scored -3
Does this change how police departments operate?
The bill penalizes jurisdictions that reduce law enforcement budgets, which may hinder local efforts to reform policing practices.
- Scored -3
Does this protect the right to fair treatment by the courts?
The bill restricts local policies regarding cash bail and personal recognizance, which are key components of pretrial due process.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
- Maintaining Bail and Release Standards: Under Section 2, the bill prohibits grants to entities that substantially limit cash bail for covered offenses or allow judges to grant personal recognizance release to individuals previously convicted of a felony. This could be seen as a way to ensure specific bail and release standards are maintained for offenses that pose a threat to public safety and order, such as murder, rape, carjacking, and looting.
Potential Negative Impacts for People
- Reduction in Funding for Local Jurisdictions: Under Section 2, the Attorney General is prohibited from awarding, renewing, or extending grants to states or local governments with specific bail/release policies or to urbanized local governments that have reduced law enforcement budgets. This could result in a loss of grant funding for those specific jurisdictions.
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? — The bill specifically targets urbanized local governments for grant reductions if they cut law enforcement budgets. Would Black Americans be better off under this? — The bill's impact on urbanized jurisdictions and bail policies may disproportionately affect predominantly Black urban populations. Would households on low incomes be better off under this? — Restrictions on cash bail and reduction of local grants may negatively impact low-income individuals reliant on specific local judicial policies.
- Social Issues And Justice
- Does this change how police departments operate? — The bill penalizes jurisdictions that reduce law enforcement budgets, which may hinder local efforts to reform policing practices. Does this narrow racial gaps in how people are treated? — The restriction on bail and law enforcement funding may disproportionately affect urban areas frequently associated with racial equity discussions. Is this likely to lift people out of poverty? — Reducing grants to urbanized local governments could negatively impact social services in those areas.
- Economy And Finance
- Does this reduce what the federal government spends? — The bill limits federal grant awards to specific state and local jurisdictions.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this give the federal government more power? — The bill increases federal oversight by using grant eligibility to influence local bail and law enforcement budgeting decisions. Does this protect the right to fair treatment by the courts? — The bill restricts local policies regarding cash bail and personal recognizance, which are key components of pretrial due process.
- 10/24/2025
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 10/21/2025
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 10/17/2025
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 10/6/2025
- 2 Cosponsors added.
- 9/30/2025
- Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
- 10 Cosponsors added.
- Introduced in House
Andy BiggsRepublican · Arizona
Josh BrecheenRepublican · Oklahoma
Sheri BiggsRepublican · South Carolina
Chuck EdwardsRepublican · North Carolina
Russell FryRepublican · South Carolina
Wesley HuntRepublican · Texas
Abraham HamadehRepublican · Arizona
Pat HarriganRepublican · North Carolina
Gregory MurphyRepublican · North Carolina
Mary MillerRepublican · Illinois
Troy NehlsRepublican · Texas
Ralph NormanRepublican · South Carolina
Chip RoyRepublican · Texas
Keith SelfRepublican · Texas
David TaylorRepublican · Ohio