Understand Your Rights. Solve Your Legal Problems
California, along with 16 other states, has filed a federal lawsuit against the Trump administration in a major legal battle with wide-ranging implications for state authority, environmental law, and federal oversight.
The coalition challenges the Federal Highway Administration’s (FHWA) alleged unlawful withholding of $5 billion in funds allocated by Congress to expand the nation’s electric vehicle (EV) charging infrastructure.
The Heart of the Dispute
On his first day back in office, President Trump signed an executive order directing federal agencies to cease the disbursement of funds appropriated under the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA), widely known as the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law.
Among the halted programs was the National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure (NEVI) Formula Program, designed to accelerate the construction of EV charging stations across the country.
California officials assert that this directive has already deprived the state of more than $300 million, jeopardizing thousands of jobs and stifling a burgeoning sector crucial to meeting both environmental and economic goals.
Governor Gavin Newsom described the Trump administration’s action as “another Trump gift to China,” contending that obstructing domestic clean energy initiatives cedes technological leadership and job growth opportunities to international competitors.
Attorney General Rob Bonta accused the administration of dismantling environmental protections to favor fossil fuel interests.
"The President continues to roll back environmental and climate change protections, this time illegally stripping away billions of dollars for electric vehicle charging infrastructure, all to line the pockets of his big oil friends.
The facts don’t lie: the demand for clean transportation continues to rise, and California will be at the forefront of this transition to a more sustainable, low-emissions future. California will not back down, not from Big Oil, and not from federal overreach.”
The lawsuit contends that the FHWA’s withholding of funds violates multiple constitutional provisions, ignores explicit Congressional appropriations, and undermines state efforts to combat climate change and foster economic growth in the clean energy sector.
If successful, the suit could reaffirm the limits of executive power in overriding legislative appropriations and set a critical precedent for state-federal relations concerning environmental policy and infrastructure development.
California has positioned itself as a national leader in zero-emission vehicles (ZEVs), with over 178,000 public and shared EV charging ports already installed and a comprehensive plan to expand this network significantly.
In addition to pursuing federal funds, the state has committed substantial resources of its own, including:
$640 million toward zero-emission truck and bus infrastructure.
$500 million to deploy 1,000 ZEV school buses.
$1.3 billion allocated to public transit projects supporting clean transportation.
Governor Newsom recently announced additional legal challenges to federal tariffs and launched initiatives to fortify international trade relationships and protect California’s economic interests.
The outcome of this litigation could significantly impact not only the availability of EV infrastructure funding but also the constitutional balance between federal directives and state rights in environmental policymaking.
The NEVI program was originally designed to help build 500,000 EV chargers across the United States by 2030, a critical goal that could now be delayed by the administration’s actions.
California also has a statewide plan to phase out sales of new gas-powered vehicles by 2035. According to the International Energy Agency, global EV sales are projected to reach 45 million annually by 2030, underscoring the urgency of accelerating EV infrastructure development.
Credit Suisse Resolves Tax Crimes Case with $510M Settlement
Pennsylvania Moves Toward Marijuana Legalization, Eyes $600M Revenue
UnitedHealth Group, the country’s largest health insurer, is now at the center of a proposed class action lawsuit.
A group of shareholders claims the company misled investors by failing to disclose key changes in its business strategy, moves they argue directly led to billions in financial losses.
The suit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, names CEO Andrew Witty and CFO John Rex as defendants.
The investors say that between December 3, 2024, and April 16, 2025, UnitedHealth withheld information that would have significantly altered market perceptions and stock valuations.
The lawsuit alleges that, following the fatal shooting of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson in December 2024, the company shifted away from certain aggressive claims denial practices that had previously supported its profitability.
According to the plaintiffs, UnitedHealth did not warn shareholders about how this change could affect its bottom line.
In April 2025, UnitedHealth slashed its profit forecast for the year. The result was swift and severe: the company’s stock price plunged more than 22% in a single day, erasing around $119 billion in market value.
For many investors, the loss was catastrophic and they argue, avoidable.
The lawsuit claims the company had a duty to disclose these material changes. Instead, UnitedHealth allegedly allowed its stock to trade at artificially inflated prices.
UnitedHealth has publicly denied any wrongdoing. In a statement, the company said it intends to “vigorously defend” itself against the allegations but offered no further comment due to the ongoing litigation.
At the core of the lawsuit is a fundamental obligation of publicly traded companies: the responsibility to disclose material information that could affect investment decisions.
Under federal securities laws, particularly the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, companies must be transparent about major risks and changes that could influence stock value.
Cases like this often examine whether a company knowingly withheld important facts or failed to exercise reasonable care in informing its investors.
The outcome could have ripple effects beyond UnitedHealth, possibly influencing disclosure practices across the healthcare and insurance sectors.
The situation also highlights the financial and legal risks companies face when changing long-standing business practices, particularly those that directly affect profitability.
As of early May 2025, UnitedHealth’s stock price had stabilized somewhat, hovering around $389.84 per share. Still, the financial damage and reputational impact are likely to linger as the lawsuit progresses.
Diageo Faces Lawsuit Over “100 Percent Agave” Tequila Claims
California Man Sentenced in $17M Medicare Hospice Fraud Case
While neighboring states rake in hundreds of millions from legal cannabis sales, Pennsylvania has watched from the sidelines. But that could soon change.
On Wednesday, the Pennsylvania House approved a bill to legalize recreational marijuana.
The legislation now heads to the Senate, where supporters hope to keep the momentum going.
If it passes, Governor Josh Shapiro has already signaled he’s ready to make it law.
Nearly all of our neighbors have legalized adult-use cannabis — and while we sit on the sidelines, we're losing out on millions in revenue and millions more in economic activity.
It's time for us to catch up.
Today, the Pennsylvania House took an important step to create more…
— Governor Josh Shapiro (@GovernorShapiro) May 8, 2025
How Much Money Are We Talking About?
If Pennsylvania follows the example of states like Illinois and Michigan, the numbers could be huge.
Experts estimate the state could bring in anywhere from $400 million to $600 million per year in cannabis tax revenue once the market fully matures.
Even in the first year, earnings could easily top $100 million as the industry gets off the ground.
But the economic benefits wouldn’t stop at taxes. A legal cannabis market could create 20,000 to 40,000 new jobs across cultivation, retail, security, marketing, and logistics.
Analysts also point to a ripple effect, more business for real estate, legal services, tourism, and other industries.
All told, Pennsylvania could see $2 billion to $4 billion in additional economic activity annually.
Playing Catch-Up
So far, Pennsylvania has fallen behind its neighbors:
New York, New Jersey, and Maryland already have adult-use cannabis markets up and running.
Delaware and Ohio have legalized recreational marijuana, with sales expected to begin soon.
Only West Virginia remains strictly medical.
That’s left Pennsylvania residents crossing state lines to buy cannabis legally elsewhere, taking their dollars with them.
The Senate will now take up the bill. It’s unclear how quickly they’ll move, but advocates are urging lawmakers to act before the legislative session ends.
Governor Shapiro made his position clear: “Now it’s time to find agreement and send a bill to my desk.”
Fast Facts About Legal Marijuana and State Revenues
Illinois collected over $451 million in cannabis taxes in 2023 alone.
Michigan’s cannabis tax revenue hit $462 million the same year.
New York’s adult-use cannabis industry is expected to generate $1.25 billion annually within a few years.
States with legal cannabis often see 40,000+ jobs created within the first 3 to 5 years.
Legal markets typically reduce illicit sales by 50% or more in the first two years.
Pennsylvania’s medical marijuana program has already registered over 700,000 patients, a strong sign of market demand.
Global law firm Clifford Chance has played a key role in the initial public offering (IPO) of Auntea Jenny (Shanghai) Industrial Co., Ltd., a major player in China’s booming freshly-made tea beverage market.
The company’s shares began trading this week on the Main Board of the Hong Kong Stock Exchange.
"We are proud to have advised Auntea Jenny on its listing in Hong Kong, which reinforces our Greater China IPO team's market-leading expertise and track record. This milestone highlights the investor confidence in Auntea Jenny's growth potential and the broader appeal of China's consumer sector." Tim Wang said.
The Clifford Chance team was led by Tim Wang, Chair of the firm’s China Practice, with partners Jean Thio and Virginia Lee also heading the effort. They were joined by counsel Lorna Lyu and a team of associates: Yaping Li, Tang Xiao, Edward Xie, and Ashley Sun along with legal analyst Lisa Yan.
Auntea Jenny is northern China’s top freshly brewed tea brand and ranks among the top three mid-priced tea brands nationwide. Founded in 2013 with its first store at People’s Square, Shanghai, the company pioneered blending grains with milk tea.
Today, Auntea Jenny operates over 8,000 stores across more than 300 cities in China and Malaysia. In 2019, it expanded into the mid-range fresh fruit tea market, fueling strong growth. In 2024, the brand unveiled its 5.0 identity, adopting "Modern Orange" and introducing the "Cheetah Lady" IP, celebrating free-spirited women.
Clifford Chance is a global law firm with over a century of history and a presence in 23 countries through 34 offices. A member of the prestigious Magic Circle, the firm is recognized for its deep expertise in banking, corporate law, finance, dispute resolution, and tax. It advises a broad spectrum of clients, including multinational corporations, financial institutions, governments, and not-for-profits by combining international best practices with local market insight. Known for its collaborative culture and forward-thinking approach, Clifford Chance delivers innovative, high-quality legal solutions across every major industry and sector.
When President Donald Trump launched his official meme coin, $TRUMP, in January 2025, few could have predicted how much wealth it would create or how many legal and ethical questions it would raise.
According to a recent analysis, 58 cryptocurrency wallets collectively profited more than $1.1 billion from trading the token. Each wallet earned at least $10 million.
Meanwhile, roughly 764,000 smaller investors lost money, many of them everyday Americans who bought in after the initial hype.
Now, attorneys, regulators, and lawmakers are examining how the coin was launched, who benefited, and whether the enterprise crossed legal lines.
The $TRUMP coin debuted just days before Trump’s second inauguration. Within 24 hours, it surged to a staggering $27 billion market capitalization.
But beneath the headlines of record-breaking growth, a pattern emerged: a handful of wallets earned millions while the vast majority of holders took losses.
Critics say the launch created an uneven playing field, rewarding insiders while exposing retail investors to significant risk.
“What we’re seeing is a textbook example of wealth concentration in an unregulated market,” said a securities law professor at Georgetown University.
“And when political figures are involved, the legal exposure increases exponentially.”
Several potential legal violations are now under scrutiny:
Market Manipulation: Was the price of $TRUMP artificially inflated? The clustered profits suggest possible insider activity or coordinated trading.
Conflict of Interest: Reports indicate that Trump-affiliated companies control as much as 80% of the coin’s total supply, raising serious concerns about whether public office was leveraged for private gain.
Securities Violations: If $TRUMP qualifies as a security under U.S. law, its sale without proper SEC registration could be illegal.
Campaign Finance Issues: Some fear profits from the coin may have indirectly funded political activities, potentially violating Federal Election Commission (FEC) rules.
The controversy has already spurred action on Capitol Hill. Senators Richard Blumenthal and Chris Murphy introduced the MEME Act (Maintaining Ethical Market Engagement), which would bar federal officials from profiting from digital assets while in office.
At the same time, both the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) are believed to be reviewing the coin’s trading history.
Private class-action lawsuits may also be forthcoming, particularly from investors who suffered losses.
Adding to the unease are reports that exclusive $TRUMP coinholder events, including a private dinner hosted by Donald Trump himself, are planned for later this year.
Critics argue that this access-for-investment model risks turning political support into a commodity.
“We are witnessing the merging of political capital and financial capital in a way that undermines both public trust and market integrity,” said a former ethics lawyer from the Obama administration.
For legal professionals, the $TRUMP coin raises several urgent issues:
Crypto Compliance: Advising clients on evolving digital asset regulations is becoming a core competency.
Securities Litigation: If enforcement actions proceed, lawyers specializing in securities law will be in high demand.
Political Law: The intersection of campaign finance, ethics rules, and cryptocurrency is an emerging legal frontier.
As investigations continue, one thing is certain. The $TRUMP meme coin is no longer just a quirky footnote in the world of digital assets. It has become a flashpoint in a broader debate about political power, financial innovation, and investor risk.
In January 2025, President Donald Trump launched the $TRUMP coin in the days leading up to his second inauguration, setting off a frenzy in the crypto markets.
Within 24 hours, it soared to a $27 billion market cap - an astonishing figure even by meme coin standards. For 58 well-positioned wallets, it generated profits of at least $10 million each.
But for hundreds of thousands of small investors, it quickly became a costly gamble.
Today, the coin’s meteoric rise and uneven outcomes are drawing the scrutiny of lawmakers, regulators, and legal scholars. What started as a political novelty may soon shape the legal landscape for cryptocurrency and the future of campaign finance.
Global law firm Norton Rose Fulbright has advised Qualitas Energy and its U.S. platform company, Heelstone Renewable Energy, in a key acquisition that expands the company’s reach and capabilities in the renewable energy sector.
Heelstone has acquired a portfolio of wind and solar development assets, along with a team of 11 professionals, from Florida-based Valor Infrastructure Partners (VIP).
This marks the company’s first major deal since being acquired by Qualitas Energy in May 2024.
The transaction adds over 5 gigawatts (GW) to Heelstone’s growing portfolio and furthers its transformation into a fully integrated Independent Power Producer (IPP).
Among the acquired assets is a 190-megawatt (MWp) solar project in Texas, which is expected to begin operating between 2027 and 2028, pending development milestones.
The deal also includes several early-stage onshore wind projects located across the western United States.
In addition to the physical assets, Heelstone will welcome a group of seasoned professionals from VIP, enhancing the company’s in-house expertise in solar, wind, battery storage, and other renewable technologies.
Mike Weich, formerly VIP’s Chief Executive Officer, will now lead Heelstone as its new CEO. Daryl Hart, previously VIP’s Chief Development Officer, will take on the same role at Heelstone.
“This is a pivotal moment for Heelstone,” said Alejandro Ciruelos, Partner and U.S. Country Head at Qualitas Energy. “Bringing in VIP’s team and development pipeline not only expands our technological capabilities but also strengthens our position as a leading player in the U.S. renewable energy market.
We’re well positioned for long-term growth and ready to pursue both organic and acquisition-driven opportunities.”
Based in Durham, North Carolina, Heelstone’s team now numbers around 60 professionals who manage every stage of renewable energy project development. Backed by Qualitas Energy, the company is building a reputation for executing complex renewable projects and capitalizing on the increasing demand for clean energy.
“I’m honored to lead Heelstone at such an exciting time,” said Mike Weich, the company’s new CEO. “With the support of Qualitas Energy and the addition of VIP’s talented team, we’re ready to grow our footprint and accelerate the delivery of high-quality renewable energy projects across the country.”
The Norton Rose Fulbright deal team was led by Becky Diffen (Austin) and Kimberly Franssen (Chicago). The team also included Christine Fernandez Owen (Chicago), Todd Schroeder (Dallas), Marjorie Glover (New York), Stefan Reisinger (Washington DC), Robert Shapiro (Washington DC), Jenn Guzman, Bob Greenslade (Denver), Claire Huitt (Washington DC), Birdie Adler (Austin), Alec Mitrovich (San Francisco), and Paulette Gerhart (San Antonio).
Norton Rose Fulbright is a leading global law firm with more than 3,000 lawyers advising clients across over 50 locations worldwide, including London, Houston, New York, Toronto, Mexico City, Hong Kong, Sydney, and Johannesburg. Established in 1794, the firm provides expertise in sectors such as financial services, energy, and technology. Known for its work in corporate transactions, dispute resolution, and regulatory matters, it serves multinational clients, including corporations, government entities, and financial institutions. The firm is committed to diversity, inclusion, and pro bono work, with a focus on industries essential to the global economy, covering regions such as Europe, the United States, Canada, Latin America, Asia, Australia, Africa, and the Middle East.
More Articles from Lawyer Monthly
Baker McKenzie has advised DBS Asia Capital Limited, acting as financial adviser to the offeror, Victory III Co., Ltd, in connection with the privatization of Vesync Co., Ltd. (Stock Code: 2148, "Vesync").
The move was carried out through a scheme of arrangement under section 86 of the Cayman Islands Companies Act (2025 Revision). Vesync’s shares were officially delisted from the Hong Kong Stock Exchange on May 7, 2025.
Vesync, known for designing and selling a range of small home appliances, operates under popular brand names including Levoit, Cosori, Etekcity, and Pawsync.
The Baker McKenzie team was led by Christina Lee, Co-Head of the firm’s Asia Pacific Capital Markets Practice. She was supported by Partner Brian Wong and Associates Michael Chau and Ivy Chui.
In a statement, Lee highlighted the significance of the deal. "We are delighted to have supported DBS Asia Capital on this transaction. This deal showcases our strengths in public M&A, as well as our ability to guide clients in navigating the complex legal and regulatory issues involved in take-private transactions."
Vesync Co., Ltd. is a global smart home technology company founded in 2012. It designs, develops, and sells small home appliances under the Etekcity, Cosori, and Levoit brands. Vesync integrates many of its products with the VeSync app for a connected smart home experience. Headquartered in the U.S. with offices in Asia, Europe, and North America, Vesync focuses on innovation and user-friendly technology.
Baker McKenzie is a leading global law firm founded in 1949, with a presence in over 40 countries. With a team of 13,000 professionals, the firm advises corporations, governments, and institutions on complex legal matters across corporate law, litigation, tax, and more. Renowned for its cross-border capabilities and innovative approach, Baker McKenzie has handled over USD 600 billion in M&A transactions in the past five years—more than 65% of which span multiple jurisdictions. The firm is also recognized for its commitment to diversity, inclusion, and sustainable business practices.
Hogan Lovells Advises ICM Group on €25 Million Dual Bond Issuance
Texas Bail Amendment Advances with Governor Abbott’s Backing
A California man has been sentenced to 12 years in federal prison after admitting to running a years-long scheme that defrauded Medicare out of more than $17 million through sham hospice companies and a home health care business.
Petros Fichidzhyan, 44, of Granada Hills, was sentenced in federal court to 12 years in prison. He was also ordered to serve three years of supervised release and pay over $17 million in restitution.
A Web of Fraud and Stolen Identities
According to prosecutors, Petros Fichidzhyan masterminded a complex operation that exploited Medicare’s billing system by creating hospice companies that existed only on paper.
He and his co-conspirators used the stolen identities of foreign nationals to pose as business owners and submitted fake documentation to Medicare.
The fraudsters also stole the names and personal identifying information of several physicians, including two who were deceased to falsely certify patients for hospice care.
In reality, many of the services billed to Medicare were either medically unnecessary or never provided at all.
Millions Pocketed and Laundered
Medicare ultimately paid out nearly $16 million to the bogus hospices. Fichidzhyan personally pocketed close to $7 million, investigators said.
To hide the proceeds, he laundered more than $5.3 million through a network of shell companies and third-party bank accounts.
The fraud didn’t stop at hospice services. Fichidzhyan also used a home health care agency he controlled to submit more than $1 million in false Medicare claims, again relying on stolen physician credentials.
When one doctor discovered that their information was being used fraudulently, Fichidzhyan allegedly tried to cover his tracks by offering the doctor an $11,000 payoff.
A Growing Pattern of Hospice Fraud in California
Fichidzhyan’s case is just one example of a broader problem federal authorities have been battling for years. Southern California, particularly the Los Angeles area, has become a national hotspot for hospice fraud schemes.
In recent years, numerous operators have exploited regulatory loopholes to create so-called “pop-up” hospices - businesses set up quickly to bill Medicare, often without providing legitimate care.
A 2023 report by the Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General (HHS-OIG) revealed that California has one of the highest concentrations of suspicious hospice providers in the country.
Investigators found that some companies were billing for patients who were not terminally ill or were unaware they had been enrolled in hospice care at all.
The Los Angeles Times and other outlets have also documented how some hospice operators recruit vulnerable patients, particularly elderly immigrants with promises of free care or financial incentives, then fraudulently bill Medicare on their behalf.
In February, Fichidzhyan pleaded guilty to multiple charges, including health care fraud, aggravated identity theft, and money laundering.
As part of his sentence, the court ordered the forfeiture of a house purchased with fraudulent funds. Authorities also seized nearly $3 million from bank accounts linked to the scheme.
A Broader Crackdown on Hospice Fraud
Federal officials say this case is part of an ongoing crackdown on hospice-related Medicare fraud. The FBI and HHS-OIG led the investigation, with support from the Justice Department’s Criminal Division.
“Schemes like this not only defraud taxpayers but also undermine the integrity of the entire Medicare system.” an FBI spokesperson said.
Volvo Cars recently announced that it will reduce its workforce by about five percent at its Ridgeville, South Carolina plant.
Approximately 125 employees, spanning both assembly and office positions, will be affected.
The company pointed to shifting market conditions and new trade policies, including tariffs, as the main reasons behind the decision.
While layoffs are an unfortunate reality in today’s volatile economy, this development brings a number of legal considerations to the forefront, particularly for employment attorneys advising either businesses or affected workers.
One of the first questions raised by the layoffs is whether the federal Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN) Act applies.
The WARN Act requires many employers to provide at least 60 days’ notice before implementing large-scale layoffs or plant closures. This typically applies when a business has at least 100 full-time employees and lays off 50 or more employees at a single site.
Although Volvo’s planned reduction appears close to this threshold, whether WARN obligations were triggered depends on the specific circumstances, including the timing and aggregation of the layoffs.
Attorneys representing employers must review these rules carefully, as even smaller layoffs can qualify when multiple reductions happen over a short period.
In addition to federal notice requirements, the risk of discrimination claims must also be considered. Workforce reductions can inadvertently have a disproportionate impact on legally protected groups, including older workers or employees of certain racial or gender backgrounds.
Under laws such as Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), employers are responsible for ensuring that layoffs are not discriminatory, whether intentionally or indirectly.
Employment counsel should advise clients to examine how layoff criteria might affect different groups and to document their decision-making process thoroughly to defend against potential disparate impact claims.
Volvo has indicated it intends to support affected workers, which often means providing severance packages. However, if severance agreements require employees to waive their right to sue, these waivers must comply with strict legal standards.
This is especially important for workers over the age of 40, as the Older Workers Benefit Protection Act (OWBPA) imposes additional requirements to ensure that any release of age discrimination claims is knowing and voluntary.
Employment attorneys should review the language of these agreements carefully to ensure compliance and fairness.
While Volvo cited economic challenges and trade policy changes as justifications for the layoffs, it is important to note that financial pressures do not excuse an employer from adhering to legal obligations.
WARN compliance, anti-discrimination laws, and contractual severance obligations remain fully applicable, regardless of external market factors. Courts tend to scrutinize layoffs carefully, particularly when companies attempt to invoke economic necessity as a defense.
Beyond the immediate legal concerns, the layoffs may also influence the workplace environment in other ways. Job reductions often increase interest in unionization, even at previously non-unionized workplaces.
Employees facing job insecurity may become more receptive to organizing efforts, and the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) closely monitors employer actions that could discourage or interfere with union activity.
Attorneys should counsel employers to communicate thoughtfully and lawfully during these sensitive periods.
Finally, employment counsel should consider the broader reputational and regulatory implications of workforce reductions. In today’s business climate, layoffs can affect a company’s Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) profile.
Investors, regulators, and the public are increasingly attentive to how companies manage employee transitions and whether workers are treated fairly and transparently.
Volvo’s workforce reduction serves as a clear example of how economic decisions intersect with complex legal responsibilities.
For employment attorneys, the situation underscores the importance of proactive legal review and strategic planning when advising clients on workforce changes. Whether representing employers striving to comply with the law or employees navigating their rights, attorneys play a critical role in ensuring that workforce reductions are handled lawfully and ethically.
Hogan Lovells Advises ICM Group on €25 Million Dual Bond Issuance
Kirkland & Ellis Guides Rotunda Capital’s $735 Million Fund IV
For years, Texas Republicans have fought to give judges more authority to keep certain defendants behind bars before trial. Now, they appear closer than ever to making that a reality.
This legislative session, a proposed amendment to the Texas Constitution, backed by Governor Greg Abbott, is moving forward quickly.
If passed, it would give judges the power to deny bail to individuals charged with violent crimes. This marks a significant change from current Texas law, which generally ensures the right to pretrial release.
Supporters say the amendment is needed to protect the public from violent offenders who might commit new crimes while out on bond.
Opponents argue it could undermine basic legal rights and deepen existing inequalities in the justice system.
At the heart of the debate is Senate Joint Resolution 5 (SJR 5). The proposal would empower judges to deny bail to defendants charged with serious violent offenses, including murder, aggravated kidnapping, and assault with a deadly weapon.
Currently, judges can only withhold bail in a narrow set of cases, such as capital murder.
Lawmakers are also considering Senate Bill 9 (SB 9), which would expand the list of crimes ineligible for release on a personal bond.
The bill targets offenses like unlawful possession of a firearm and violations of family violence protective orders. Another measure, Senate Joint Resolution 1 (SJR 1), would allow courts to deny bail to undocumented immigrants charged with felonies.
At a recent press event at Crime Stoppers of Houston, Abbott made his position clear.
"Activist judges are protecting dangerous criminals instead of the innocent people they victimize," the governor said. He highlighted more than 200 incidents in the Houston area since 2019 where defendants released on low or no-cash bail allegedly committed violent crimes.
Abbott has made the constitutional amendment a top priority this session, even declaring it an emergency item alongside his successful school voucher push.
The governor’s proposal would also give prosecutors the right to appeal bail decisions and require judges to provide written explanations when granting bail to violent offenders.
"Texans deserve a justice system that puts their safety first," Governor Abbott added.
Law enforcement groups and many Republican lawmakers have rallied behind the amendment, saying it will keep dangerous individuals off the streets.
But civil liberties groups, including the ACLU of Texas, are sounding alarms. They argue the changes would undermine the presumption of innocence and disproportionately harm low-income and minority defendants who already face challenges securing bail.
Critics also warn the amendment could lead to higher jail populations and strain on county resources without offering a clear solution to underlying social and economic problems.
Pretrial detention is when a person accused of a crime is held in jail before their trial takes place. This usually happens if:
The court denies bail because the person is considered dangerous or a flight risk.
The accused can’t afford to pay the bail set by the judge.
Certain charges (like capital murder) automatically make the person ineligible for release before trial.
The idea is to make sure defendants show up to court and to protect public safety. However, pretrial detention is controversial because:
It can penalize poor defendants who can’t afford bail.
People held pretrial are legally presumed innocent until proven guilty.
Long detentions can pressure defendants to plead guilty, even if they might be innocent.
Can you be remanded at a pre-trial hearing?
yes you can and here’s how it works:
At a pretrial hearing or arraignment, the judge reviews the charges and decides whether the defendant should be released on bail, released without bail (personal recognizance), or remanded (kept in custody) until trial.
A judge might remand a defendant if:
The charges are especially serious (e.g., murder, armed robbery).
The person is considered a flight risk.
The person is believed to pose a danger to the community.
The defendant has a history of failing to appear in court.
In Texas (and many other states), even if bail is offered, if the defendant can’t pay, they may remain detained until trial. That’s why changes to bail and pretrial detention laws, like the amendment Texas lawmakers are considering, are so significant.
Credit Suisse Resolves Tax Crime Allegations with $510M Settlement
Hogan Lovells Advises ICM Group on €25 Million Dual Bond Issuance
