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 Legislative Budget Board 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 to establish a rebuttable presumption against bail for the most serious and violent offenses, rather than a categorical denial; to narrow the scope of covered crimes; and to include procedural safeguards (such as written findings, access to counsel, and the right to appeal), the resolution could be made consistent with liberty principles and constitutional protections. 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.

• Individual Liberty: This resolution strikes at the heart of individual liberty by denying a fundamental procedural protection: the right to bail. Under both the Texas and U.S. Constitutions, individuals—including noncitizens—are presumed innocent until proven guilty and are entitled to due process. The proposed amendment requires the categorical denial of bail to certain noncitizens charged with specific felonies, regardless of individual circumstances such as flight risk, ties to the community, or likelihood of reoffending. By removing judicial discretion and imposing a blanket rule based on immigration status and charge, the resolution undermines the principle that liberty should only be curtailed following fair and individualized legal proceedings. It risks detaining people for extended periods without trial based not on what they’ve done, but on who they are perceived to be under the law—a clear erosion of personal liberty.
• Personal Responsibility: While the resolution intends to hold dangerous individuals accountable by restricting their release, it fails to make distinctions based on the individual’s behavior or conduct after the alleged crime. By preemptively removing bail access based on status, the resolution effectively assumes risk and guilt without a thorough judicial review of each person’s individual responsibility or circumstances. It does not support mechanisms that empower individuals to demonstrate trustworthiness or secure release based on behavior, history, or evidence.
• Free Enterprise: Although the resolution doesn’t directly regulate commerce, it could impose downstream financial burdens on county governments and local taxpayers. Extended pretrial detention increases local jail populations, which requires additional public spending on housing, medical care, staffing, and court administration. These increased costs, borne disproportionately by counties, could divert resources from other priorities or result in higher taxes or service cuts, undermining local economic freedom and operational efficiency.
• Private Property Rights: This legislation does not directly implicate private property rights. However, broader government expansions that undermine individual liberties can, over time, normalize state overreach in areas that touch property and economic freedoms.
• Limited Government: The resolution marks a significant expansion of government power by placing a rigid, constitutionally mandated restriction on the judicial branch’s authority to evaluate and set bail. Rather than enabling courts to assess public safety risk or likelihood of flight, the amendment imposes a blanket detention policy based on status and accusation alone. Such inflexible, centralized mandates erode the principle of limited government, replacing local discretion and judicial judgment with top-down constitutional directives. Moreover, by setting a precedent for status-based pretrial detention, this amendment risks paving the way for further erosions of due process in other areas of law.

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

• HJR 16 (Same As)
• SJR 49 (Same As)