{"id":415,"date":"2026-05-04T10:29:40","date_gmt":"2026-05-04T10:29:40","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/nccivilrightslaw\/?p=415"},"modified":"2026-05-04T10:29:40","modified_gmt":"2026-05-04T10:29:40","slug":"executive-order-14342-the-end-of-cashless-bail-and-its-effects-on-black-and-hispanic-communities","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/nccivilrightslaw\/2026\/05\/executive-order-14342-the-end-of-cashless-bail-and-its-effects-on-black-and-hispanic-communities\/","title":{"rendered":"Executive Order 14342: The End of Cashless Bail and its Effects on Black and Hispanic Communities"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Since taking office in 2025, President Donald Trump has issued a flurry of executive orders<\/a>. Many of these executive orders have had profound effects on minority communities<\/a>. Executive Order 14342<\/a> is no exception. The Executive Order, named \u201cTaking Steps to End Cashless Bail to Protect Americans\u201d, has the stated purpose of \u201c[m]aintaining order and public safety\u201d, but instead of fulfilling this purpose, the Order amplifies the racial undertones throughout the criminal justice system and encourages further disproportionate incarceration of Black and Hispanic Americans. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Executive Order 14342<\/a> provides that \u201cfederal policies and resources should not be used to support jurisdictions with cashless bail policies, to the maximum extent permitted by law.\u201d The Order goes on to say that states and other localities that have \u201csubstantially eliminated\u201d cash bail for crimes that \u201cpose a clear threat to safety and order\u201d will be evaluated for federal funding cuts in the form of eliminating grants and terminating contracts. The Order clarifies that crimes that \u201cpose a clear threat to safety and order\u201d include \u201cviolent, sexual, or indecent acts, or burglary, looting, or vandalism.\u201d <\/p>\n\n\n\n

When an individual is charged with a crime, cash bail<\/a> is used to guarantee that the individual will return to court while still allowing them to go home. The amount of cash bail owed is set by a judge or magistrate and is influenced by various factors such as the severity of the charged crime and whether the judge views the defendant as a flight or safety risk. Those who are unable to afford the bail set by the judge, can remain in jail for months, even if the charged crime is a minor misdemeanor. In other words, those who are \u201cpresumed innocent\u201d are forced to remain in jail. Around half a million<\/a> people in jail have not yet been convicted of a crime. Of these people who have not been convicted, approximately 90 percent cannot afford their bail. In addition to the obvious injustice shown by these numbers, the time away can have a major impact<\/a> on the lives of the defendants; they may lose their jobs, their housing, or be unable to provide for their families. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

In a cashless bail system, those charged with a crime may be released before trial without payment, so long as they are determined to not pose a flight or safety risk<\/a>. These decisions are made based on the facts and circumstances<\/a> of each case, with an emphasis on the charged crime. The defendant\u2019s ability to pay<\/a> is not a factor in the decision. Because cashless bail systems do not require defendants to pay money, a defendant\u2019s chance for release is directly related to the nature of their alleged crime instead of acting as a punishment<\/a> for their lack of wealth. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

While cashless bail systems can benefit those of various races and cultures, minority individuals, specifically those in the Black and Hispanic communities<\/a>, benefit greatly from these systems. Not only are Blacks and Hispanics more likely to be stopped by police, but they are also more likely to remain in jail<\/a> prior to their trial. Black men in particular receive bail amounts that are 35% higher<\/a> than their white counterparts. On average, courts set bail amounts at around $10,000 higher<\/a> for Black defendants compared to White defendants. These disparities can lead to more than just pre-trial jail time; they make guilty pleas<\/a> more likely for minority members. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

By de-incentivizing states to allow cashless bail, Executive Order 14342 encourages disproportionate punishment and economic hardship across minority communities. It is worth noting that the Order increases these negative effects without fulfilling its stated purpose of increasing safety. The narrative<\/a> that pretrial incarceration lowers homicide rates is false. In reality, the states that rely on cash bail have some of the highest incarceration rates<\/a> in the country. Instead of eliminating cash bail to increase safety, research<\/a> has shown that community investment is a more effective way to increase safety through lowering homicide and crime rates. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

To enhance safety, the Trump administration should dedicate more resources to\u00a0methods<\/a>\u00a0that have been empirically proven to reduce crime. Through focusing on increasing the income of Americans (through employment or public benefits), providing access to safe and stable housing, and increasing access to healthcare (including mental health services), the administration could achieve their stated mission of\u00a0lowering crime<\/a>,\u00a0while at least partially preventing the racial disparities that\u00a0result from\u00a0Executive Order 14342.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Katie Schoulda<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Class of 2027, Staff Member<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Since taking office in 2025, President Donald Trump has issued a flurry of executive orders. Many of these executive orders have had profound effects on minority communities. Executive Order 14342 is no exception. The Executive Order, named \u201cTaking Steps to End Cashless Bail to Protect Americans\u201d, has the stated purpose of \u201c[m]aintaining order and public safety\u201d, but instead of fulfilling this purpose, the Order amplifies the racial undertones …<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":5,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[9],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/nccivilrightslaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/415"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/nccivilrightslaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/nccivilrightslaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/nccivilrightslaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/5"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/nccivilrightslaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=415"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/nccivilrightslaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/415\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":416,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/nccivilrightslaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/415\/revisions\/416"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/nccivilrightslaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=415"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/nccivilrightslaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=415"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/nccivilrightslaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=415"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}