TRENTON -- In a new effort to undo New Jersey's criminal system overhaul, a bail bonds company hired a team of lawyers to file a federal lawsuit on behalf of a Camden County man charged after a bar fight, claiming a judge's refusal to grant him bail violated his constitutional rights.

The class-action suit argues the judge gave Brittan Holland "a modern-day scarlet letter" when he ordered the 32-year-old to wear a GPS monitoring bracelet while awaiting trial for aggravated assault charges stemming from a brawl between football fans.

The case represents the latest salvo in the bail bond industry's fight against bail reform in New Jersey and across the U.S., which could put the industry out of business. New Jersey is one of a growing number of states to move away from criminal justice systems based upon cash bail.

The new system, which took effect in January, largely replaced monetary bail with an arrangement where judges can order defendants jailed based on a risk assessment that weighs the suspect's criminal history and the charges they face.

Supporters of the change say taking money out of the equation is more fair, arguing that poor defendants for low-level crimes shouldn't languish in jail just because they can't afford a few thousand dollars in bail.

Holland's suit contends, however, that money bail is a fundamental right enshrined in the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

It was filed by Paul Clement, a former U.S. Solicitor General, on behalf of Holland and the Lexington National Insurance Corporation, a Maryland-based bail bonds company that does business in New Jersey.

The suit marks a change in tactics for opponents of the new system.

Since the changes took effect, members of the bail bonds industry have been vocal on social media, echoing the concerns of local police that too many defendants were being released under the new system, only to commit new crimes.

Alexander Shalom, a senior attorney for the state chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union and a staunch supporter of the bail overhaul, said there was a "rich irony in the bail bond industry's decision to file this federal class action lawsuit."

"For months, those who profited from our old broken system have been shouting - mistakenly - about people being released without accountability," he said in an e-mail. "Now, the same industry contends that every person should have a right to buy his or her way out of supervision."

According to court records and local police, the case that inspired the novel challenge to New Jersey's ambitious bail overhaul started with an argument over the Philadelphia Eagles.

Police arrived at Joe's Tavern in Winslow Township on April 6 to find the bar owner's son and another man badly beaten and suffering from a broken nose and facial fractures, according to a statement. The two men told authorities they had gotten into a fight over the football team with two other men who later fled.

Winslow Township police soon found a car matching the description of the vehicle parked at a home in Sicklerville. Holland and his father Christopher Hoffman, 56, were inside, "covered in fresh blood," police said in the statement.

Hoffman, an "admitted" Dallas Cowboys fan, was charged with third-degree aggravated assault and released on a summons, but Holland faced second-degree charges and was jailed, according to the police statement.

Under the new system, a prosecutor can move to have a defendant detained or placed under monitoring as they await trial. A judge then rules on the request by weighing a number of factors, including an algorithm that calculates their risk of flight or danger to the community.

In Holland's case, the judge ordered he wear a GPS-tracking ankle bracelet and submit to regular check-ins with pretrial services, a new subsection of the judiciary that monitors defendants released until trial.

Holland's lawsuit claims the restrictions placed on him mean he "cannot shop for food or basic necessities and cannot take his son to baseball practice." Under the old system, it contends, Holland could employ the services of a bail bondsman and walk a free man until trial.

The outcome of the suit could have wide-ranging implications as states around the country, from Ohio to California, look to enact similar reforms. So far, challenges filed in state court against the overhaul haven't resulted in slowing or stopping the changes.

State Attorney General Christopher Porrino, one of the defendants in the suit, said in a prepared statement that the new system "continues to meet its dual goals of protecting the community by detaining without bail the most dangerous defendants, while at the same time minimizing pre-trial incarceration of low-risk, indigent defendants."

He declined to comment on the details of the case.

S.P. Sullivan may be reached at ssullivan@njadvancemedia.com. Follow him on Twitter. Find NJ.com on Facebook.

Have information about this story or something else we should be covering? Tell us. nj.com/tips