In Stack et al. v. Boyle, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that bail amounts set by courts should not be more than necessary to ensure a defendant's presence at trial and should be based on individual circumstances rather than standardized amounts for specific charges. The case involved twelve defendants who were charged with conspiring to violate the Smith Act, which made it illegal to advocate overthrowing the government; their bails had been set between $20,000 and $50,000 each without consideration of their personal situations or ability to pay such sums. The court held this was excessive under the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against excessive bail and violated Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 46(c), which required judges setting bail consider factors like a defendant’s character and financial resources.

In the dissenting opinion for Stack et al. v. Boyle, Justice Jackson argued that the majority's decision to require evidence of flight risk in setting bail amounts was too restrictive and could potentially undermine public safety. He contended that while preventing flight is a primary purpose of bail, it should not be its only consideration; other factors such as ensuring appearance at trial or protecting society from potential harm should also be taken into account when determining bail amounts. Furthermore, he expressed concern about limiting judicial discretion in this area and warned against creating rigid rules that might hinder judges' ability to respond appropriately to individual circumstances.