In Kansas and across the United States, the debate over cash bail has reached a fever pitch, with new research and political rhetoric clashing over the impact and fairness of the system. On September 18, 2025, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Kansas released a study that puts the spotlight on Sedgwick County, where low-income families are reportedly bearing the brunt of cash bail requirements, especially for nonviolent offenses. Meanwhile, President Donald Trump and other conservative leaders argue that cashless bail is fueling a rise in crime, setting the stage for a contentious national conversation about justice, public safety, and economic disparity.
Picture a Wichita-area family, as the ACLU of Kansas suggests in its recent report: a husband and wife raising a daughter on a combined monthly income of $5,600. Rent alone eats up $1,000, and the rest goes to utilities, groceries, and other essentials. When the father is arrested for felony possession of marijuana and slapped with a $2,500 bond, the family faces an impossible choice. Paying the bail means losing nearly half their monthly income, but leaving him in jail could mean months without his income, risking eviction and further hardship. According to the ACLU, wealthy individuals in the same predicament can simply pay and walk free, while low-income families are left grappling with the fallout.
“There's something really unfair about a two-tiered system of justice,” said Micah Kubic, executive director of the ACLU of Kansas. “Where folks get treated differently, have different outcomes based on whether they have money or whether they don't.” The study found that the most common bail in Sedgwick County is $1,000, with an average of $1,500. For residents with an average monthly income of $3,000, that means bail can swallow a third or more of their income. The ACLU’s report paints a stark picture: cash bail isn’t just about ensuring court appearances—it’s about who can afford freedom and who can’t.
Standard bail requires those in custody to pay the full amount upfront as collateral for their release, with the money refunded only if they attend all court dates. Alternatively, defendants can turn to bondsmen, who typically charge a non-refundable 10% fee. For many, neither option is feasible. The ACLU of Kansas is now calling for a broader use of no-cash bail, particularly for nonviolent crimes. Under this system, suspects are released on their own recognizance, promising to return for court dates or face additional penalties. The organization’s study specifically urges the Sedgwick County District Attorney’s Office to request own-recognizance bonds for non-person misdemeanor and felony cases.
But the path to reform is anything but straightforward. Sedgwick County District Attorney Marc Bennett pointed out that bail decisions ultimately rest with judges, not prosecutors. “A prosecutor can provide information to the judge about the defendant and request certain bail terms, but a judge ultimately decides,” Bennett explained in an email to the Kansas News Service. He also noted that nearly 70% of people facing new charges have prior felony convictions, which weigh heavily in bail determinations. “These prior convictions constitute the person’s criminal history and will obviously impact the amount of bond the Judge requires.”
Bennett did acknowledge that for many low-level crimes, Sedgwick County already uses cashless bail. However, he stressed that bail is determined by a range of factors, including the severity of the offense and the defendant’s record. Representatives for the Kansas County and District Attorneys Association declined to comment on the ACLU’s recommendations, leaving the debate open-ended at the local level.
Nationally, the conversation has taken on a sharper edge. President Donald Trump has called for the elimination of cashless bail, both through executive action and proposed federal legislation. During an August 2025 press conference, Trump claimed, “Somebody murders somebody and they are out on no-cash bail before the day is out. We’re going to end that.” He argues that cashless bail policies let criminals back onto the streets, driving up crime rates.
However, these claims have been directly challenged by criminal justice reform advocates and fact-checkers. The Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania described Trump’s statements as misleading, noting that jurisdictions with cashless bail typically exclude violent felonies and murder from eligibility. According to the Center, it’s “exceedingly rare” for murder suspects to be released without bail before trial.
Further undermining the argument that cashless bail leads to more crime, the Brennan Center for Justice conducted a 2024 study across 33 jurisdictions with bail reform. The study found no evidence linking cashless bail to increased crime rates. Ames Grawert, a co-author of the study, told the Kansas News Service, “It would be surprising if there was a single policy lever that elected officials or judges could pull to change crime rates at the drop of a hat.”
Data from the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) supports this assessment. After a spike in violent crime during the COVID-19 pandemic, rates have continued to fall in 2025, returning to near pre-pandemic levels by 2022. The Bail Project, a national group advocating for bail reform, points to New Jersey and Illinois as examples where crime actually dropped following the implementation of cashless bail systems.
Despite the evidence, the political divide remains stark. Trump’s push for a nationwide ban on cashless bail faces constitutional questions. The R Street Institute, a conservative think tank, has argued that such a ban may be unconstitutional, suggesting that bail policy should remain in the hands of state and local governments. Kubic echoed this sentiment, saying, “It is disrespectful to state and local officials—regardless of party, regardless of ideology—and their ability to do what is best for their constituents.”
The underlying issue, as highlighted by both the ACLU and the Brennan Center, is the fundamental fairness of a system where wealth determines pretrial freedom. “A lot of people agree, even across party lines, that wealth shouldn't be what decides whether someone walks free or spends the time that they have before trial in detention,” Grawert said. Reform advocates argue that the current cash bail system punishes people before they’ve been convicted, leading to lost jobs, evictions, and families torn apart—all before a verdict is reached.
As the debate rages on, one thing is clear: the question of cash bail isn’t just about public safety or political talking points. It’s about the very foundation of justice—who gets it, who can afford it, and whether the system serves everyone equally. With research and rhetoric pulling in opposite directions, Kansas finds itself at the crossroads of a national reckoning over fairness, freedom, and the future of criminal justice.