Federal judge orders trial in felony bail fight
A federal judge ruled Tuesday that the case challenging Harris County's felony bail system should proceed to trial. Nineteen felony judges represented by state Attorney General Ken Paxton immediately gave notice they planned to appeal to the 5th U.S. Circuit.
The case was brought by the same civil rights firm and Houston law firm that sued and successfully reshaped the county’s misdemeanor practices. It claims the judges in the district routinely violate the equal protection and due process rights of thousands of poor defendants who face costly bail without a judge making an individualized determination that it’s necessary. In further pleadings, the indigent plaintiffs named in the case say that Gov. Greg Abbott’s executive order during the COVID-19 pandemic exacerbated the harm for people detained in the county because they face pretrial detention if they can’t afford bond and have a prior conviction for violent crime.
The defendants include Sheriff Ed Gonzalez, who does not oppose the litigation, and 23 Harris County felony district judges, who have split into a larger group represented by Paxton, who opposes the lawsuit, and a smaller faction represented by attorney Allan Van Fleet, who represented the judges in the misdemeanor bail case.
In a 65-page opinion, Chief U.S. District Judge Lee H. Rosenthal denied the state and felony judges’ motions to dismiss the case, finding that the evidence involved “vigorously disputed factual allegations that must be developed further to resolve the legal issues the parties present.”
Lawyers for Abbott and 19 Democratic district judges argued in October the judges were protected by immunity, the federal courts do not have jurisdiction and the indigent arrestees do not have standing to sue.
Rosenthal found the court had standing and thousands of indigent arrestees, even though the individuals changed over time, had grounds, as a group, to sue.
She wrote that the factual allegations in the lawsuit were sufficient to bar dismissal on the grounds that the judges were immune to litigation. The case raises many disputes, which she said could be taken up with fuller evidence in her court.