Maranda ODonnell v. Harris County, Texas, e
892 F.3d 147
5th Cir.2018Background
- Class action by Maranda O’Donnell and others challenging Harris County’s misdemeanor bail practices as violating Texas law and the Fourteenth Amendment; district court granted a preliminary injunction after extensive factfinding.
- Texas law requires individualized bail assessments using enumerated factors; Harris County used a prescheduled secured bail schedule applied routinely by Hearing Officers and County Judges.
- Factfinder found probable-cause/bail hearings often perfunctory, usually within the bail schedule, with Pretrial Services recommendations for unsecured release frequently rejected.
- Empirical findings: secured money bail in practice operated as pretrial detention for indigent arrestees and was not shown to improve appearance or law-abiding behavior; pretrial detention produced worse outcomes (higher guilty pleas, longer sentences, collateral harms).
- District court held County violated procedural due process and equal protection and issued an injunction eliminating secured bail for many indigent misdemeanor arrestees; Fifth Circuit largely affirmed liability but narrowed constitutional framing and vacated the overbroad injunction, remanding for a tailored remedy.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Procedural due process — existence and scope of state-created liberty interest in pretrial release | O’Donnell: Texas law and constitution create a state-based liberty interest against wealth-based pretrial detention; procedures must prevent secured-bail detention of indigents. | County: liberty interest and procedural floor alleged by plaintiffs too broad; county burdens weigh against onerous procedures. | Court: Texas law creates a state-created liberty interest (narrower than district court framed); procedures used were inadequate. Remedies must include individualized consideration, notice, opportunity to be heard within 48 hours, and reasoned findings (but not mandatory written opinion for every case). |
| Procedural due process — timing and content of procedural protections | O’Donnell: require notice, hearing, impartial decisionmaker, written findings, and 24-hour timeline. | County: 24-hour requirement and written findings unduly burdensome; lower federal standards apply. | Court: rejects 24-hour rule; adopts 48-hour probable-cause/bail-hearing standard and declines to require 50,000 written decisions annually, but requires case-specific stated reasons and timely process. |
| Equal protection — wealth-based discrimination by secured money bail | O’Donnell: County’s mechanical application of secured bail results in detention solely due to indigency, reflecting purposeful discrimination and violating equal protection; intermediate scrutiny applies. | County: challenge as disparate-impact only; alternatively, rational-basis or heightened scrutiny satisfied. | Court: finds discriminatory purpose supported by facts; applies heightened scrutiny (indigents suffer absolute deprivation of liberty) and holds County’s practice not narrowly tailored—unconstitutional. |
| Municipal liability under § 1983 — whether County Judges and Sheriff are policymakers | O’Donnell: County Judges and Sheriff are municipal policymakers for county bail policy; County liable. | County: Sheriff lacks policymaking authority; judges are municipal actors only in their judicial role. | Court: County Judges are municipal policymakers; Sheriff is not and cannot be held as a municipal policymaker under § 1983. |
Key Cases Cited
- Jett v. Dall. Indep. Sch. Dist., 491 U.S. 701 (discusses municipal liability under § 1983 and official policy)
- Pembaur v. City of Cincinnati, 475 U.S. 469 (state-law question whether an officer is a municipal policymaker)
- Gerstein v. Pugh, 420 U.S. 103 (probable-cause hearing and limits on federal injunctions over state criminal prosecutions)
- County of Riverside v. McLaughlin, 500 U.S. 44 (a probable-cause hearing within 48 hours is required under the Fourth Amendment)
- Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (balancing test for procedural due process)
- Pugh v. Rainwater, 572 F.2d 1053 (5th Cir. en banc) (pretrial detention of indigents violates due process and equal protection)