This is the second of our four-part Legislative Roundup series, which offers an in-depth analysis of each core area of FFJC’s reform efforts including: debt-based driver’s license restrictions, state and local fee elimination, ability-to-pay practices, and automated traffic enforcement. This series will prepare advocates to take on the upcoming legislative session more energized, informed, and better equipped to fight for justice.
Missed the first post? Read it here.
Next up, End Justice Fees: our bipartisan nationwide campaign to eliminate harmful fees.
Like Free to Drive, the End Justice Fees campaign made history this past year. Oklahoma enacted H.B. 1460 – the broadest Republican-led fee elimination bill in history. This bill eliminates six criminal justice system fees, including electronic monitoring and appointed counsel application fees, and will allow justice-involved Oklahomans and their families to avoid paying at least $3.3 million in fees each year. Passage of this monumental reform was made possible by the sustained advocacy of FFJC and our state allies Oklahomans for Criminal Justice Reform, Oklahoma Policy Institute, Oklahoma Appleseed and national partners Responsible Business Initiative for Justice, Prison Fellowship Ministries, Right on Crime, Justice Action Network, Center for Employment Opportunities, as well as bold leadership from House and Senate leaders, and a demand from Governor Kevin Stitt to “get rid all fines, fees, and court costs for good.”
Oklahoma wasn’t the only state with a Republican trifecta where Republican lawmakers demonstrated a keen understanding of the counterproductive and harmful impact of fees. North Dakota passed H.B. 1417, which fully eliminates counsel fees and supervision fees, and requires an interim study of the other fees imposed in the state’s justice system. The bill was part of a package of bills stemming from the state’s Justice Reinvestment Initiative, supported by the Crime and Justice Institute and aimed at improving reentry outcomes. Notably, the North Dakota reforms, like the Oklahoma reforms, were passed despite projections that they could lead to some revenue loss, signaling a recognition that the justice system should be about justice and fairness, not about revenue generation. While only 25% of the $6 million in supervision fees assessed are actually collected, eliminating these fees will result in some revenue loss, a fiscal dynamic the state is prepared to take on. New Hampshire, another Republican-trifecta state, also wisely eliminated counsel fees and forgave outstanding counsel fees debt with the passage of H.B. 2. The bill also dissolved the state agency whose sole responsibility was collecting these fees. And Arkansas eliminated a $15 court technology fee charged in criminal and traffic cases through S.B. 575, which also established a Justice System Fee Task Force to study fees in the justice system and make recommendations regarding the possible alteration or elimination of fees.
Nevada and New Mexico continue to shine as national leaders in the End Justice Fees campaign. Through the sustained advocacy of FFJC and our incredible state and local partners, progress has been made year after year in these states. This session Nevada enacted S.B. 120 ending public defender and payment plan fees, and S.B. 88, which makes any outstanding medical debt accrued during incarceration uncollectible and unreportable after a person is released from incarceration and returns to their community. These wins build on the progress previously made in the state to eliminate medical copays and commissary markups. New Mexico enacted S.B. 375, which eliminated parole supervision fees across the state, removing a major barrier to success for people transitioning back into their communities after incarceration. The elimination of parole fees builds on significant progress towards eliminating all of New Mexico’s justice fees.
The End Justice Fees campaign also made progress towards addressing the myriad fees imposed on people who are incarcerated or returning home after incarceration and their families in New York this year. New York’s Governor Kathy Hochul issued an executive order making New York the sixth state in the country to guarantee that all phone calls within its prisons are free, a reform that is projected to save families an estimated $9.9 million a year. FFJC, alongside our allies in the Connecting Families coalition, have advocated for this change for years, building on the progress FFJC and our partners achieved in 2018 to make New York City the first jurisdiction in the country to eliminate the cost of jail phone calls.
There were also new developments that uplift the importance of ensuring buy-in at all levels for reform, which is particularly important as we head into legislative sessions with governments preparing for harsh fiscal climates. For the first time, a fee elimination bill was vetoed by a state Governor. The Colorado legislature passed legislation (HB25-1026) to eliminate medical copays and other medical charges in state prisons, but Governor Jared Polis vetoed it. Concurrent with his veto, Governor Polis issued an Executive Order to the DOC to review and revise its medical fees and copays. Despite the setback, FFJC will continue to support our partners’ efforts to fully eliminate these fees in future years. Notably, with the enactment of HB25-1294, Colorado successfully made the state’s temporary prohibition on juvenile fees, which was set to expire on June 30, 2025, permanent.
In states with sessions that carry over from 2025 into 2026, other fee elimination bills made significant progress and FFJC will continue to work with state advocates, national partners and policymakers to cross the finish line next year. For example, in Delaware, H.B. 132 would eliminate several fees, including the state’s court security fee and videophone fee. The legislation passed the House Judiciary Committee and is based on the recommendations of the state’s Criminal Legal System Imposed Debt Study Group, established through previous legislation. In Michigan and Massachusetts, bills to stop requiring the payment of medical costs in prison are pending. In Illinois, a bill to eliminate conviction registry fees has been filed.
In some states, we must work to build a foundation for full fee elimination by pushing for incremental reforms that will eventually provide a springboard for more comprehensive reform down the road. For example, in Virginia, we took important steps toward long-term fee elimination with the enactment of two bills: H.B. 1661, creating the state’s first-ever statewide payment plan program and H.B. 1665, allowing people who owe fines or fees to request an itemized debt receipt from the court. Making fees easier to pay or understand is not our ultimate policy aim. However, creating transparency to demonstrate the need to eliminate fees and building power among state-level allies is critical for full elimination of those fees. With that foundation in place, we can push for bold fee elimination bills in Virginia in future sessions.
Fighting New Fees in the Face of Budget Uncertainty
Despite the progress, bills to increase fees or add new fees were introduced in many states across the country. While many failed to pass, some states enacted legislation that will add to the financial burden that people must shoulder after contact with the criminal justice system. Among the bills that passed, many were blatant attempts to raise new revenue for the purposes of funding local justice systems through additional court costs or other administrative fees. For example, Alabama increased both civil and criminal court costs by $50 to fund the maintenance, repair and operation of a county jail. In Mississippi a series of bills added fees specifically designated to pay for repairs, renovations and upkeep of courthouses and pretrial detention facilities in counties. Tennessee authorized certain counties to assess an additional $12.50 in criminal cases, the proceeds of which could be kept by the county.
A couple of states also authorized new fees to be charged to people who are incarcerated. Maine passed legislation permitting the Commissioner of Correction to establish a fee for the use of technology for accessing educational programming with the passage of LD 45. Alaska also passed HB 35, allowing state facilities to charge fees for email or electronic visitation. The FCC has repeatedly delayed the rollout of new Congressionally-mandated rate caps on phone, video and electronic communications by people who are incarcerated. Once those regulations are finally implemented, they will limit the fees that states like Alaska can impose for email and video calls, regardless of what state legislation authorizes, however, only state level advocacy will eliminate them all together
While the addition of these new fees is concerning, it is not altogether surprising, given the current fiscal landscape. Generally, state revenue growth has been slowing after several years of pandemic-era tax collections and widespread implementation of recently passed state tax cuts. Coupled with the significant federal funding cuts to state and local governments passed in the 2025 federal reconciliation bill, fiscal conditions are looking increasingly tight for upcoming state budgets. Although many of the federal funding cuts are being rolled out gradually, with some of the biggest provisions not actually set to take effect until after the 2026 midterms, elected officials around the country are already grappling with how to solve anticipated revenue gaps.
Lawmakers may therefore see new fines and fees as a fiscal solution– but this is a flawed approach to revenue-raising, as we know that the enormous cost of collections often erodes any new dollars that come in the door. Further, people’s inability to pay fines and fees is only likely to increase as millions become at risk of losing financial assistance for basic needs through cuts to Medicaid and SNAP. This means that collection rates for fines and fees, which already only represent a small portion of total assessments, could very well decrease even further as communities struggle with deeper financial insecurity due to federal cuts. In short, this makes fines and fees a problematic and inefficient solution in the face of tightening state fiscal conditions.
Even when certain fees are generating some revenue, legislators are increasingly showing that they understand that revenue is not worth the harms that it creates. For example, lawmakers in both Oklahoma and North Dakota demonstrated a willingness to eliminate fees and absorb a revenue loss, because they knew those fees were ultimately damaging families and communities. In both places, policymakers pointed to the fact that fees ultimately prevented people from successfully reentering their communities after system involvement. As more states face budget uncertainty, pointing to these harms can help to defend against unwise efforts to increase fees.
Future Fee Elimination Reforms & Holding the Line in 2026
While we are optimistic about fee elimination prospects in the year ahead, we also anticipate renewed or stronger challenges, particularly in the many states that will be adversely impacted by the federal budget cuts combined with slowed state revenue growth. In the face of increasingly strained budgets and revenue shortfalls, policymakers have historically turned to fines and fees in a futile and misguided attempt to raise revenue, even while this has proven to be, time and again, harmful and ineffective. New fees exacerbate the already impossible financial burden that people who come into contact with the justice system face, ensnaring them in an eternal cycle of debt and punishment. And the enormous cost of collections, which are growing even more due to the increasing financial challenges individuals are facing, makes fees an ineffective, unreliable way to generate revenue.
Recent bipartisan End Justice Fees successes give us hope that policymakers are more aware that raising revenue through increased fees is a flawed approach to addressing budget shortfalls. However, we know we are entering a period of fiscal challenge that will test these assumptions. FFJC is committed to working with Democrats, Republicans, and advocates across the country to hold the line against new fines or fees and remind policymakers that introducing or increasing exploitative financial penalties is not a path toward budget resilience or fiscal health.
Stay tuned for part 3 of our 2025 legislative roundup series: Ability-to-Pay Practices.