Challenging the Money Bail System in California
In re Humphrey
In 2016, Civil Rights Corps began partnering with the San Francisco Public Defender’s Office to file numerous state and federal habeas petitions on behalf of people in jail awaiting trial who were detained solely because they were unable to pay money bail.
In March 2021, the California Supreme Court issued, until that point, one of the best and most thorough opinions in U.S. history on the subject of bail. The court granted a writ of habeas corpus to our client, 63-year-old Kenneth Humphrey, and, in the process, wrote an opinion that revolutionizes bail setting in California: holding that it violates the state and federal Constitutions to jail someone solely because they cannot pay money bail and announcing strict procedural protections at bail hearings. After decades of unconstitutional detention of the poor, the Humphrey case set a vital precedent that went a long way toward ending our unjust money bail system.
Our work led the California Attorney General to announce that: “The Department of Justice has determined that it will not defend any application of the bail law that does not take into consideration a person’s ability to pay, or alternative methods of ensuring a person’s appearance at trial.”
After Humphrey, our pretrial habeas work expanded; learn more about the California Writ Project.
Media Coverage:
‘Gigantic momentous decision’: California Supreme Court shrinks role of cash bail in jailings | The Mercury News | March 25, 2021
Op-Ed: California's high court has the chance to fix our unsafe and unfair money bail system | Los Angeles Times | June 14, 2019
Oral Argument: In re Humphrey | Jan 5, 2021
Op-Ed California Supreme Court must decide fate of state’s unjust money bail system | The Sacramento Bee | Dec 29, 2020
Court Ruling Could Change State's Approach to Bail | SF Gate | Jan 25, 2018
State Appeals Court Ruling Could Change How Bail is Handled in California | CBS News | Jan 1, 2018
Federal judge: Bail that kept SF man behind bars since July ‘unconstitutional’ | SF Gate | Nov 29, 2017
All Hail Bail Reform | SF Weekly | Nov 2, 2017
Partners:
Filings:
California Supreme Court: Respondent's Brief on Merits (Aug 8, 2018)
California Court of Appeals Opinion (Jan 25, 2018)
Humphrey Habeas Petition (Aug 4, 2017)
More from the Bail
In re Kowalczyk. In May 2026, the California Supreme Court issued one of the most liberatory decisions in U.S. history, unanimously holding that jailing a person pretrial simply because they can’t pay money bail is unconstitutional. The California Supreme Court also held that the vast majority of people accused of crimes must be released prior to trial under the California Constitution and reaffirmed rigorous procedural protections that the government must follow if it seeks to detain a presumed innocent person.
Since the landmark Humphrey ruling, our California habeas project has expanded: providing training and partnering, so far, with 17 county public defender and appointed defender offices spanning all 6 of California’s intermediate appellate districts and the California Supreme Court.
Sandoval v. Riverside. In May 2025, individuals detained in Riverside County jails filed a class action lawsuit challenging Riverside County’s cash-based jailing of individuals between their arrest and first court hearing, as well as Riverside County’s unnecessary delay of that hearing. Rabbi David Lazar and Reverend Jane Quandt chose to join this lawsuit because they view cash-based jailing as unconscionable. The lawsuit was filed against Riverside County Superior Court, Riverside County, the Riverside County Sheriff’s Office, and Sheriff Chad Bianco.
In partnership with public defenders in Oregon, Civil Rights Corps is challenging Oregon’s longstanding practices of jailing people charged with misdemeanors prior to trial and jailing people charged with other crimes without constitutionally required due process.
Butler v. Prince George's County. In 2022, CRC and partners filed a class action lawsuit challenging Prince George’s County's pretrial detention practices. The lawsuit seeks a declaration that PG County and its officials violate Plaintiffs’ rights under the United States and Maryland Constitutions by detaining people pretrial without meeting the substantive and procedural standards required for pretrial detention.
Urquidi v. City of Los Angeles. CRC and co-counsel brought suit in California Superior Court in November 2022 on behalf of several individuals who had been jailed for five days simply because they could not access enough cash to pay for their freedom.
Hester v. Gentry. In 2018, Civil Rights Corps and partners filed a lawsuit alleging that hundreds of people in Cullman County, Alabama, are routinely jailed before trial due to their inability to pay bail in exchange for their release.
Feltz v. Regalado. In 2018, Civil Rights Corps filed a lawsuit challenging Tulsa County’s unconstitutional wealth-based pretrial detention system. Tulsa County used a secured money bail schedule to determine conditions of release for almost every person arrested in the county.
Briggs v. Montgomery. In 2018, we filed a lawsuit against Maricopa County Attorney Bill Montgomery and Treatment Assessment Screening Center, Inc. for operating a diversion program that charges hundreds of dollars in fees to people accused of possessing small amounts of marijuana. In 2024, the Court approved a landmark $2.6 million settlement.