As jurisdictions gear up for the upcoming 2025 sessions, now is the time for advocates to analyze 2024’s fines and fees legislation and strategize for 2025.
In 2024, our national campaign, Free to Drive, achieved significant progress with the passage of bills in Illinois and Ohio. Ohio, in particular, saw a major victory in the final hours of its legislative session, ending debt-based license suspensions. Since the campaign’s launch in 2019, FFJC, together with our partners, has expanded reform from a few states taking action to nearly half of the country reforming this cruel and counterproductive practice.
Our other national campaign, End Justice Fees, also earned some big wins. Maryland ended parole fees, and drug and alcohol testing fees for people under supervision, while also eliminating $13 million in debt. Additionally, Delaware ended more fees for the third year in a row.
We saw legislation introduced at the state, local, and even the federal level with Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ) and Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) introducing the Families Over Fees Act – a bill to end the predatory fees imposed on families with incarcerated loved ones.
Despite continued momentum for reform, the gains we have made cannot be taken for granted — they must be protected. Increasingly, we are seeing the introduction of bills that either attempt to roll back previous wins, or those that introduce more harmful fees in misguided attempts to fund governments. FFJC has worked closely with our allies on both sides of the aisle to stop this from happening. But that work is never done.
Together with our ever-growing coalition of our state and local partners, we will continue to push for, work toward, and empower communities to pursue the strongest possible reforms.
Here are our biggest lessons from 2024:
- Fines and fees reform is bipartisan work — From New York to Oklahoma, legislators, governors, and advocates across the political spectrum understand that fines and fees reform is needed in order to have safe and thriving communities – and that they can work together to advance meaningful legislation that makes a real difference in people’s day-to-day lives.
- Good data and fiscal analysis can assuage fears of revenue loss — Policymakers can be hesitant to remove sources of funding from state budgets, even when the amount of money spent collecting fine and fee payments actually exceeds the amount collected. FFJC has produced a number of resources for legislators and advocates on tracking fines and fees revenue, leveraging budget cycles to drive reform, and more.
- Defending wins sustains momentum — While introducing legislation to eliminate debt-based license restrictions remains a priority for advocates, protecting gains and preventing rollbacks is equally important. Our partners expended significant resources to push back against bad bills, and to reaffirm core research around economic fairness and racial justice in their successful defensive efforts.
- New areas of reform are emerging — The proliferation of fine-based automated traffic enforcement in conjunction with budget deficits, has prompted questions over the true intention behind these technologies. FFJC’s policy guidance can be used to help jurisdictions address income inequities in traffic enforcement and design an equitable and effective traffic safety approach.
Legislative Roundup
Below, you will find the full summary of fines and fees related bills introduced and enacted during 2024 state legislative sessions.
Debt-Based Driver’s License Suspension Reforms
Progress:
Debt-based driver’s license reform saw a major victory this year in Illinois with the passage of HB 277, which eliminates driver’s license suspensions for failure to appear in court. The state previously eliminated failure to pay suspensions through bills passed in 2020 and 2021.
Ohio’s HB 29, also introduced this session, passed the legislature on the last day of the lame-duck session. This bill eliminates suspensions for failure to pay fines and fees, among other types of suspensions unrelated to dangerous driving, makes licenses that had been suspended due to nonpayment automatically eligible for reinstatement, and ends the reinstatement fee.
Though it did not pass this session, Connecticut’s HB 5331 prohibiting driver’s license suspensions solely for failing to pay fines, fees or other charges resulting from a motor vehicle infraction or violation, or for failure to appear for any scheduled court appearance, was introduced and received favorable reports from House committees.
In 2024, legislators introduced a number of bills that although not full repeals, would, or did significantly impact debt-based suspensions. For example:
Delaware enacted HB 267, which mandates that courts must make a finding that nonpayment of child support was willful before permitting driver’s license suspensions.
Georgia enacted HB 926, which provides Georgians who commit certain minor offenses with an easier path to driver’s license restoration by rescheduling court dates following their first instance of failing to appear in court.
Even while these steps are encouraging, our allies and we know that evidence-based reform must be bold and comprehensive in order for us to realize our goals fully. We are eager to build off of the steps that some states have taken, and to continue pushing for the fullest possible reform in states across the country.
Regressive driver’s license suspension bills that were introduced (and failed)
Unfortunately, there were also bills introduced that would resume driver’s license suspensions or otherwise create debt-based barriers to driving. In Mississippi, HB 445 would have resumed driver’s license suspensions for failure to pay a fine or fee, after suspensions were halted in 2019, but the legislation was soundly rejected by the House. In Wisconsin, SB 404/AB 421 sought to increase penalties for the operation of a motor vehicle without a license, but it failed to make it through the Assembly in 2024.
Fee Elimination Reforms
Progress:
In 2024 the efforts to build a strong foundation towards comprehensive fee elimination continued, with states and localities working to end this harmful practice and look towards more reliable, sustainable, and equitable ways to fund governments.
Maryland passed HB 531/SB 728, which eliminated a parole supervision fee and repealed authorization for the Division of Parole and Probation to require a supervisee to pay for certain drug or alcohol abuse testing under certain circumstances. Delaware enacted SB 282, 283, and 284, seeking to eliminate fees with low revenue that are either inconsistently applied or are only applicable in specific circumstances, and eliminate old debts from fees already eliminated by 2022’s HB 244.
Many state legislatures introduced legislation that ultimately did not succeed, but would have eliminated various categories of fees, including:
New York’s SB 313 which sought to eliminate court and probation-related surcharges and fees, prohibit mandatory minimum fines, and mandate ability-to-pay assessments. If the No Price on Justice coalition advances this legislation in 2025, New York will be the first state in the country to eliminate all of their state imposed criminal justice fees.
Virginia’s HB 824 would have eliminated fees charged to people for representation by public defenders or court-appointed counsel. During the session, it was amended to prohibit any increases in court-appointed counsel compensation from being passed along as counsel fees; the legislature passed this amended version, but it was vetoed by the Governor.
Oklahoma’s legislature considered elimination of a $40 per month district attorney supervision fee with the introduction of HB 3497. The bill was voted out of the House with overwhelming support.
Minnesota, Michigan, Ohio, Delaware, North Carolina, Florida, Hawaii, Pennsylvania, California, Wisconsin, Washington, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, and Missouri also introduced fee elimination legislation.
Legislation to eliminate in-custody fees
This session, there were also significant efforts to eliminate burdensome in-custody fees.
Virginia’s HB 912 originally sought to eliminate phone call fees and commissary markups. As passed, it did not repeal fees, but provided that the net profits from the operation of stores and telephonic communications systems in local correctional facilities must be used for educational, recreational, or medical purposes for the benefit of the incarcerated people.
New York’s AB 2164/SB 1942 proposed the total elimination of phone call fees in both state and local facilities.
Though not directly eliminating fees, the Michigan legislature included language in their budget boilerplate that requires the Michigan Department of Corrections to review and reduce some fees, such as deposit and phone fees, incurred by incarcerated Michiganders and their families.
Hawaii, Maryland, Virginia, Minnesota, and New Jersey also introduced bills that would eliminate phone call fees in varying scopes.
This year, there was even federal support for ending the excessive costs of incarceration. Notably, Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ) and Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) introduced the Families Over Fees Act, which sought to prohibit excessive junk fees imposed on incarcerated individuals and their families. The bill characterized fees as unfair and deceptive under the FTC Act and authorized the FTC to ban them. The Act would also require public companies selling goods in prisons and jails to disclose the full prices upfront and create private rights of action, enabling incarcerated individuals and their families to pursue litigation against parties engaging in unfair fees in the carceral system. And in July, the Federal Communications Commission voted to end exorbitant phone and video call rates, implementing rates of $0.06 per minute for phone calls in prisons and large jails, $0.07 for medium jails, $0.09 for small jails, and $0.12 for very small jails, and rates as low as $0.11/minute for video calls.
Regressive legislation that would create new fees
In some jurisdictions, efforts were made to add new fees. For example, in Missouri, the legislature passed SJR 71, proposing a constitutional amendment allowing for the assessment of criminal fees to fund law enforcement pensions. Fortunately, Missouri voters rejected the constitutional amendment at the ballot box in November.
Louisiana successfully enacted SB 467, which requires certain municipalities to impose an additional $20 court cost for traffic violations.
South Dakota also enacted SB 15, authorizing costs of up to $95 associated with digital forensic examinations of any personal electronic device to be reimbursed by defendants.
Arizona approved a ballot measure adding a $20 fee on every criminal conviction, to go toward paying $250,000 to the spouse or children of a first responder who is killed in the line of duty.
Tennessee introduced HB 2518/SB 2411, which would provide for the collection of a monthly supervision and rehabilitation fee from a person on community supervision, and SB 2049/HB 2099, which would have required the clerk of every court having jurisdiction over criminal offenses to include a $12.50 charge in every cost bill – neither of which passed.
Juvenile Justice Fines and Fees Legislation
Bills were introduced in numerous states that would have eliminated or limited juvenile justice fines and fees, but did not pass including in: Virginia, Pennsylvania, Missouri, Hawaii, Kansas, Nebraska, South Carolina, Louisiana, Oklahoma, Minnesota, and Massachusetts.
Virginia’s HB 1264 would have made all fines and fees discretionary in juvenile cases involving traffic infractions. The more ambitious SB 481 was also proposed, which would have eliminated all fines and fees for Virginia youth in the juvenile and adult legal systems, but has been pushed back to the 2025 calendar.
Washington successfully enacted SB 5974/HB 2251, which requires court clerks to develop a process to waive the outstanding $43 million in juvenile fines and fees owed on over 143,000 cases.
In a few states, funding was provided by several bills to investigate juvenile fines and fees and the impacts associated with them.
Hawaii’s SCR 213/SR 189 was enacted to study the collection, compiling, and sharing data on the assessment of fees, court costs, fines, and restitution in cases against minors.
Virginia also passed HB 6001, appropriating $75,000 for a study on juvenile restitution through Item 31V.
Regressive legislation authorizing the assessment of juvenile fines
Though an outlier, Tennessee’s HB 1930 was signed into law. The bill requires juvenile courts to assess a fine of $1,000 against a child who is found to be delinquent for a second or subsequent offense, to be paid by the child’s parent, legal custodian, or guardian at the time of the offense.
Data & Transparency
Several bills passed during the 2024 legislative session that will increase data collection/reporting and transparency in the assessment and collection of fines and fees.
In Colorado, HB 1445 was enacted, requiring the state court administrator to release an annual report on probation and parole supervision fees assessed in previous years. It also prohibits courts from requiring defendants to pay probation supervision fees in more than one case when the defendant is granted probation in multiple cases. Colorado also enacted HB 1462, which requires an independent audit of and report on the Department of Corrections’ budget, including any fees assessed against people who are incarcerated.
Washington passed SB 5950, which requires the administrative office of the courts to produce a report with certain data, including the total amount assessed to, collected from, and waived for all individuals, in fees, court costs, fines, and restitution.
Virginia’s HB 246, which would have required the clerk to provide an itemized statement of fines, fees, restitution, and other costs passed the legislature, but was ultimately vetoed.
Ability to Pay & Other Notable Bills
Bills pertaining to the determination or consideration of a person’s ability to pay when assessing a fee or fine were introduced in multiple states.
Virginia introduced HB 612/SB 654, which would have provided that for any defendant sentenced to an active term of incarceration ordered to pay any fine, cost, forfeiture, or penalty, the court must enter the defendant into a deferred payment agreement. Virginia’s HB 614 would have required a court to allow for the discharge of all or part of a fine or court costs by earning credits through community service work or through working while incarcerated, which is credited at the same rate as the community service work rate.
Massachusetts’ HB 1461 would have prohibited juvenile restitution in excess of the youth’s ability to pay.
Oklahoma’s HB 3498 would have required courts to consider payment agreements in other counties and reduce payment amounts accordingly.
Idaho’s SB 1348 would have provided that in every criminal case, the court must review debts owed by the defendant at least every 90 days and establish a meaningful payment plan if no payment has been made.
Maryland’s SB 260 was enacted, providing that defendants do not have to be current on the payment of parole or probation supervision fees in order to earn compliance credit.
Virginia’s legislature attempted to enact several bills such as SB 514/HB 857, which would have reduced the period of limitations for the collection of court fines and costs to ten years.
California’s AB 1186 made the outstanding balance of any restitution fines, including collection fees, unenforceable and uncollectible 10 years after the date of imposition of an order for a restitution fine, and removed the requirement that a minor adjudged to be a ward of the court pay a restitution fine.
Automated Traffic Enforcement (ATE)
2024 was unfortunately a massive year for the proliferation of bills increasing or expanding the use and implementation of automated traffic enforcement. Laws authorizing the implementation of some form of ATE technology were proposed in almost all 50 states during the 2024 legislative session.
Notably, Washington enacted HB 2384/SB 5959 which reflected FFJC’s ATE policy recommendations to mitigate the harmfulness of fines generated by ATE. The bill requires an equity analysis of camera locations before adding a camera, limits the use of revenue to traffic safety purposes, including infrastructure, and permits the use of online ability-to-pay calculators to reduce fines, in addition to an automatic 25 percent reduction for people who receive public assistance.
What’s Next?
We are starting 2025 with purpose and determination to sustain and grow the fines and fees reform movement.
Few issues within the criminal, economic, and racial justice spaces receive such genuine bipartisan support as fines and fees reform. With more than two thirds of the country now governed by split or Republican-led legislatures, there is an opportunity to realize meaningful reform nationwide.
Many states still engage in driver’s license suspensions for failure to pay and/or failure to appear in court. Fees continue to be imposed at every stage of the criminal process, often levied against those without consideration of their ability to pay them, and the use of fine-based ATE continues to proliferate across the country.
But over the past few years, we have increased our momentum, deepened our expertise, and strengthened our bipartisan partnerships across the country. We stand ready to continue advancing long-term, deeply impactful reforms in the years ahead. Our goal is to build a resilient fines and fees reform movement for many more years to come.
Join the Movement
Are you or your organization working to eliminate fees in the justice system, end debt-based license suspensions, or on a related fines and fees reform goal?
The Fines and Fees Justice Center works with community leaders, researchers, advocates, and policymakers to drive fines and fees reform at the state and local level. We advise and collaborate with other nonprofit organizations and advocates who are leading similar charges across the country. We collect and disseminate everything we can find about fines and fees reform in our Clearinghouse. Together, our goal is to drive and sustain meaningful fines and fees reform around the country.
Contact us at [email protected] to find how we can support your efforts and sign up to our newsletter here to stay looped into the latest research, policy, and reform news from around the country.