Schilb v. Kuebel

1972-02-22

Headline: Upheld Illinois rule letting courts keep a 1% fee from ten-percent bail deposits, making pretrial release cheaper than private bonds while imposing a small administrative charge on certain defendants.

Holding: The Court upheld Illinois' law allowing clerks to keep 1% of court-set bail from defendants who post ten-percent cash deposits, finding that fee rationally serves administrative purposes and does not violate the Fourteenth Amendment.

Real World Impact:

Allows courts to retain a small administrative fee from ten-percent bail depositors.
Keeps a cheaper public alternative to private bail bondsmen in place.
Means people who use ten-percent deposits pay a small fee when released.

Topics: bail rules, pretrial release, court fees, criminal justice reform

Summary

Background

John Schilb was arrested in January 1969 on two traffic-related charges and posted $75 in cash under an Illinois law that lets some defendants deposit 10% of court-set bail. After trial he was acquitted on one charge and convicted on the other; the court clerk returned his deposit minus $7.50 retained as "bail bond costs." Schilb filed a class action against the clerk, county, and treasurer, arguing the 1% retention violated the Fourteenth Amendment’s equal protection and due process guarantees. Illinois trial and state supreme courts upheld the statute, and the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to review the question.

Reasoning

The central question was whether the 1% retention on ten-percent deposits was an unconstitutional discrimination or an improper charge against acquitted defendants. The Court treated the 1% as an administrative fee, not a punishment or a "cost of prosecution," and applied a relaxed "rational basis" test because no fundamental right or suspect classification was at stake. The majority emphasized the statute’s purpose to curb abusive private bail bondsmen and noted that the reform reduced costs for defendants compared with the old system. The Court found conceivable and sufficient administrative reasons for treating different release methods differently and therefore upheld the retention provision.

Real world impact

The decision leaves Illinois’ 10% deposit system and its 1% administrative retention in place. Defendants who choose or must use the ten-percent option will pay a small fee, while those released on recognizance or who deposit full cash or securities will not. The ruling supports state authority to design bail options that reduce reliance on private bondsmen.

Dissents or concurrances

Two dissenting justices argued otherwise: Justice Douglas would have held that charging acquitted defendants violates due process, and Justice Stewart (joined by Brennan) viewed the selective fee as an arbitrary equal-protection burden and would have reversed.