Plaintiff's opting out of the bail hearing does not deprive him of standing to challenge the bail law, since the challenge is not to the detention order, but to the lack of constitutionally sufficient procedure.
As the bail-bonding agency has only a hypothetical relationship with future customers, it does not have third-party standing to challenge the law on their behalf.
The Eighth Amendment does not guarantee a fair consideration of potential monetary bail, as that was not the practice at the time of adoption, and the Amendment does not mention monetary bail.
Cash bail and corporate surety are not protected by substantive due process, as they are neither sufficiently historically rooted nor inherent in the concept of ordered liberty. Statute's subordination of monetary bail to non-monetary restrictions is rationally related to a legitimate government purpose.
Where deft is able to ask the court for decreased restriction, sufficient procedural due process in a scheme where non-monetary pretrial appearance guarantees are prioritized over monetary bail.
http://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/173104p.pdf
Since 2011. An occasional commonplacing of the U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeal.
Neither an authoritative statement of the law nor legal advice. Quick work.