By Tanisha Pierrette, Senior Research Analyst
This is part 2 of our six-part blog series, Reforming the Revenue Machine: An Advocate’s Guide to to Court Fines and Fees. Each post unpacks findings from Imposing Instability — our national report on how courts use fines and fees to raise revenue — and turns them into tools you can use in campaigns for reform. In this series, you’ll find clear takeaways, examples of what’s happening on the ground, and strategies to strengthen reform efforts in your community.
Missed a post? You can read the full series here.
If the primary goal of our criminal legal system is the administration of justice, why are so many courts across the country focused on imposing fees?
In our latest report, Imposing Instability, we found that fees — sometimes referred to as costs or surcharges — made up slightly more than half of the monetary sanctions imposed by courts on average, totaling billions of dollars in imposed sanctions. These fees – which include courthouse fees, security fees, technology fees, fees for testing evidence, defense counsel fees, diversion fees, probation supervision fees, and collection fees, among others – are imposed at nearly every step of the criminal legal system.
Courts — places that are supposed to administer justice — are imposing lengthy and hefty bills on individuals moving through the system to raise revenue for state and local government operations. In this way, fees function as hidden taxes, often imposed on those least able to afford them. In contrast, fines are monetary sanctions meant to punish people for violating the law.Nine of the states that provided imposition data in Imposing Instability provided a detailed accounting of how much of their imposition was from fines and how much was from fees. Their data revealed that fees made up slightly more than half of the monetary sanctions imposed by courts. The takeaway from these numbers is clear: raising revenue has become a primary aim of the courts, often at the expense of pursuing genuine public safety goals.
Revealing the Hidden Tax Burden in Your Community
This trend of using courts as tax collectors reveals a fundamental problem: state and local governments are balancing their checkbooks off the backs of those processed through the courts. This creates a regressive tax system that disproportionately affects low-income and Black and Brown communities. We found that in Idaho and Pennsylvania, fees accounted for more than 70% of all monetary sanctions imposed by courts in these states. This extreme imbalance in fines and fees impositions, favoring fees, suggests that the decision to prioritize profit over justice is intentional. In many cases, judges are required to impose fees—even when someone can’t afford to pay. As a result, people can owe hundreds or thousands of dollars simply for moving through the system. This prioritization of revenue over justice undermines public trust and weakens the perceived legitimacy of the court system.
How Advocates Can Take Action
Court fees aren’t just high—they’re often hidden, confusing, and deeply entrenched in how courts fund themselves. Creating effective pushback means advocates must first understand how these fees function at the local and state levels.
Step 1: Categorize Monetary Sanctions Into Two Buckets — Fines and Fees
The best way to determine whether your local courts prioritize justice over revenue is to start with the data. Fortunately, Imposing Instability gives you a head start. Appendix B of our report breaks down fines and fees for nine geographically diverse states, offering a disaggregated look at how much of each state’s court-imposed monetary sanctions are revenue generators. It clearly shows how fees—costs with no connection to public safety or accountability—often dominate fines, which are meant to punish unlawful behavior. Use Appendix B as your model and replicate it locally.
As for the 42 other states for which we do not have separate imposition data, this is where you come in. Advocates can request their local courts to provide the percentage of impositions that are solely for raising revenue, such as fees. This will help advocates determine whether their courts prioritize accountability or generating revenue. Even if your jurisdiction doesn’t collect this information today, asking for it can shift the conversation. Courts that refuse to disaggregate their imposition data are signaling a deeper problem: a lack of transparency and a possible prioritization of revenue over justice.
When advocates push to distinguish fines from fees, it becomes much easier to spot the presence of hidden taxes in the court system. If fees dominate, it’s a sign that your courts may be functioning more as revenue centers than institutions of accountability. Remember, as long as profit-driven fees exist in the criminal legal system—at any rate— concerns about fairness, conflicts of interest, and distorted government priorities will persist. To learn how advocates can seek imposition data and how to use it, take a look at the first blog in the series.
Step 2: Follow the Money
Tracing the flow of fee revenue can reveal how much money is being generated through these hidden taxes and which government agencies or programs are benefiting from them. Advocates can begin to follow the money by examining revenue records published by the state or local budget office, Comptroller’s Office, or other fiscal oversight entities. Another useful approach is to review the legal statutes authorizing each type of fee, which often indicate whether the revenue is directed to a general fund, a specific agency, or a designated program. This kind of documentation can help clarify who benefits from each fee and how deeply revenue generation is embedded in the system. (For more concrete tips, check out our webinar, Following the Money: Finding Fines and Fees Revenue Streams.)
Here are some key questions to consider: Are fees going to the state or county general fund, or both? Are there fees being allocated towards court operating budgets? To law enforcement agencies or funds unrelated to the justice system?
Once you understand which funds and departments are receiving the fee revenue, look for fund-specific reports. These often detail how much revenue is collected annually and how those dollars are spent. Understanding who benefits from fee revenue can expose how deeply financial incentives are woven into the system and where potential conflicts of interest may exist.
Step 3: Identify Policies That Determine How Payments Are Allocated
To do this, investigate how your courts prioritize payments. Where the money goes, and in what manner, must be investigated. When someone makes a partial payment, how is that money allocated? This allocation is not always straightforward. In some jurisdictions, state statutes set the payment hierarchy—for example, mandating that fees must be paid before any portion is applied to fines or restitution. In other places, local court rules or even unwritten courthouse practices determine the order of payments. For example, in Alabama, when District Attorney’s offices are responsible for collecting unpaid fees, they get to keep the first third of all money that comes in and use it to fund their own offices, all before victim restitution or court fines are paid out. These policies can significantly shape a person’s experience with court debt, particularly if interest or late fees are accruing on fines or restitution that are lower down the priority list. It can also create a dependence on fee revenue – whether actual or imagined – in the department or agency that is supposed to profit first. Investigating how courts prioritize payments can also provide more insight into the values and goals of previous policy and decision-makers, highlighting how they fund certain programs. With this information, advocates can help current leaders determine how to course-correct local priorities.
Step 4: Look For Additional Payment Fees
Apart from fees that result from the adjudication of cases, courts often tack on payment fees simply because a person is unable to pay the fines and fees immediately. Examine whether your courts impose additional fees on those who cannot afford to pay large sums of court debt immediately, making it even harder for them to resolve their cases. Does the system charge for enrolling in a payment plan? Are there fees for doing community service as an alternative to financial payments? Are people required to pay to participate in diversion, education, or rehabilitation programs? These practices punish people with low incomes and place basic tools for accountability out of reach for the people who need them most. Such a pay-to-play system only benefits a person with enough money to participate in these off-ramps, creating two different systems of justice.
Armed with this information, you can advocate for the full elimination of court fees and push for funding solutions that don’t rely on squeezing money from people in crisis. When we remove the profit motive from our courts, we move closer to a system that’s truly about justice.
Communities That Have Taken Action
- Delaware (2024): The state enacted SB 282, a bill that changed the way the state’s Substance Abuse, Rehabilitation, Treatment, Education and Prevention (“SARTEP”) Fund was funded. It eliminated the fee that had originally been imposed on people convicted of certain drug crimes and now instead funds substance abuse treatment, education, and prevention programs through allocations from the state General Fund. This means funding for those critical programs is no longer dependent on whether people have the resources to pay their fee debts.
- Washtenaw County, Michigan: Local courts implemented policies to reduce or eliminate discretionary court costs for indigent defendants, easing financial burdens for those least able to pay.
- New Mexico (2024): The state enacted HB 139, a bill that eliminated nearly all post-adjudication fees in criminal and traffic cases, statewide.
- Nevada (2025): The state enacted SB 120, a bill that eliminated public defender fees for indigent defendants.
- Oklahoma (2025): The state enacted HB1460, a bill that eliminated multiple court fees, including application fees for indigent representation.