According to the Legislative Budget Board (LBB), SJR 1 is expected to have no significant fiscal impact on the state beyond the standard cost of publishing the proposed constitutional amendment. That cost, which covers statewide public notification requirements ahead of the November 2025 election, is estimated at $191,689.

However, the resolution may have fiscal consequences at the local level. The Office of Court Administration (OCA) notes that the proposed amendment could lead to an increase in the number of pretrial hearings, since judges or magistrates would be required to make formal probable cause determinations before denying bail under the new provision. This would likely place additional administrative demands on courts, especially in jurisdictions with large noncitizen populations.

Furthermore, because the resolution mandates the denial of bail for a broader class of serious offenses committed by certain noncitizens, it is expected to increase pretrial jail populations in county facilities. These individuals would be detained for potentially lengthy periods prior to trial, which could strain local jail capacities and increase costs associated with housing and managing inmates. While these local impacts are acknowledged, the fiscal note indicates that the associated costs are "indeterminate" at this time due to variations in caseloads and detention capacity across counties.

SJR 1, known as "Jocelyn’s Law", proposes a constitutional amendment to require Texas judges to deny bail to individuals classified as “illegal aliens” who are charged with certain serious felony offenses, if probable cause is found at a hearing. Prompted by tragic and high-profile criminal incidents involving undocumented defendants, the resolution reflects a genuine and widely felt desire for stronger public safety measures and heightened accountability in the justice system. That motivation is worthy of acknowledgment and empathy.

However, while the resolution aims to prevent future tragedies, it does so by implementing a constitutionally inflexible mechanism that substantially conflicts with key liberty principles, most notably individual liberty, due process, and limited government. The proposed amendment creates a mandatory rule that would deny bail categorically to a class of people based solely on immigration status and the nature of the charge, irrespective of individual circumstances such as community ties, prior record, or actual risk to public safety.

This is particularly problematic because noncitizens, including those who are undocumented, are constitutionally entitled to due process under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. The U.S. Supreme Court has long affirmed that “persons” under these amendments include noncitizens, regardless of status. Thus, undocumented individuals are entitled to a meaningful opportunity to be heard, to challenge their detention, and to receive individualized judicial consideration. A blanket denial of bail, based on status rather than conduct or risk, undermines this foundational legal protection and exposes the state to serious constitutional vulnerability.

In addition, by stripping judges of discretion and codifying an inflexible pretrial detention mandate, the resolution expands state power in a way that violates the principle of limited government. It replaces case-by-case judicial judgment with a broad constitutional command that may lead to unjust or unintended outcomes. From a fiscal standpoint, the LBB notes that while state costs are limited to ballot publication, local governments may face increased burdens from higher jail populations and more pretrial hearings, impacts that are likely but difficult to quantify.

For these reasons, Texas Policy Research recommends that lawmakers vote NO on SJR 1 unless amended as described. We would welcome an opportunity to re-evaluate our recommendation if those substantive changes are adopted. Until then, the resolution remains incompatible with the fundamental protections that apply to all persons under the rule of law.

• Establish a rebuttable presumption against bail for the most serious and violent offenses, rather than a categorical denial
• Narrow the scope of covered crimes
• Include procedural safeguards (such as written findings, access to counsel, and the right to appeal)

• Senate Committee on Criminal Justice: 6Y/0N (1 Absent)
• House Committee on Criminal Jurisprudence: 7Y/4N

• Texas Bail Reform: Governor Abbott's Push for Change and the Political Battle Ahead

• HJR 16 (Same As)
• SJR 49 (Same As)