DiFrancesco v. Fox
Plaintiffs allege that defendant’s practice of suspending drivers’ licenses indefinitely until all court fines and fees are paid regardless of ability to pay violates equal protection and due process.
Ability to Pay
Thompson v. State of Florida
In Thompson v. State of Florida, the plaintiff, an indigent mother of three, had her probation revoked for failure to pay fines and fees.
Kentucky Supreme Court Order 2017-07: Sliding scale of indigency
This court rule establishes a “sliding scale of indigency” and advises judges to reduce or waive fees that would pose an undue burden on defendants.
Arizona Supreme Court Administrative Order No. 2017 – 80: Facilitating the imposition and collection of court-ordered financial obligations
This new rule requires Arizona courts to offer payment plans for those who are unable to immediately pay their fines and fees.
Arizona Supreme Court Administrative Order No. 2017 – 81: Bench cards for ability to pay at sentencing in criminal and civil traffic cases […]
This new court rule approves the use of two bench cards to help judges determine defendants' ability to pay at sentencing and in collections.
Mississippi Rules of Criminal Procedure, Rules 26.6 and 27.3: Fine, Restitution, and/or Court Costs following Adjudication of Guilt.
Following litigation by the ACLU, the MacArthur Justice Center, and the Southern Poverty Law Center challenging debtor’s prisons in Biloxi, Jackson, and Corinth, the Mississippi Supreme Court made two changes related to fines and fees in its Rules of Criminal Procedure.
Texas SB 1913: Relating to the administrative, civil, and criminal consequences, including fines, fees, and costs, imposed on persons arrested for, charged with, or convicted of certain criminal offenses.
This bill aims to improve the fairness of the Texas criminal justice system’s response to defendants’ inability to pay fines and fees in criminal cases, particularly in traffic and city ordinance violations.
Driving Into Debt: The Need For Traffic Ticket Fee Reform
This report explains how the California courts’ interest in revenue collection causes a burden of debt for citizens and recommends alternatives to traditional collection methods that raise more revenue while causing less harm.
Paying More for Being Poor: Bias and Disparity in California’s Traffic Court System
This report is based on the authors’ research on traffic courts and driver’s license suspension practices in the San Francisco Bay Area. It details how much revenue courts collect from fines and fees, the harmful impacts those fees have on low-income Californians, and also advances several policy reform recommendations.
Injustice Under Law: Perpetuating and Criminalizing Poverty Through The Courts
The ability to hire an attorney in either a civil or criminal proceeding can result in an experience that is procedurally and substantively different than that of someone who is …