In re Kenneth Humphrey was a case decided by the California Supreme Court concerning whether it is a violation of due process and equal protection to imprison defendants prior to trial solely because they cannot afford to pay bail.

According to the Harvard Law Review (HLR), the decision provided "a significant substantive protection for indigent persons who might otherwise be jailed" due to their inability to pay their bail.

[2] In May 2017, Kenneth Humphrey was held in jail because he was unable to pay the $350,000 bail set after his arrest for allegedly robbing and threatening his neighbor.

[4] Bail reform advocates in California criticized this practice, arguing that it did not promote public safety and unfairly incarcerated the poor, while releasing wealthier defendants with similar charges.

[4] Mr. Humphrey, represented by Paul Myslin and Chesa Boudin at the San Francisco Public Defender's Office as well as Alec Karakatsanis of Civil Rights Corps, appealed the bail determination and argued that it was unconstitutional for judges to set a bail amount without considering the defendant’s ability to pay or non-monetary alternatives.