Equal Protection Archives - Fines and Fees Justice Center

Rodriguez v. Mach

Plaintiffs argue that their Equal protection and Due process rights were violated because of the inadequate notices, lack of inquiry into their ability to pay, and the suspension of their licenses solely because of their inability to pay.

Cook v. Taylor

This class action alleges that Alabama’s driver’s license suspension practices violate equal protection and due process because people are being punished without any determination of their ability to pay.

Howard v. The City and County of Denver, Colorado

To be released from jail in Denver, a person must pay the bond and the bond fee. Payment of the bond alone is insufficient to secure the release.

Mendoza v. Garrett

This case challenges the state of Oregon’s policy of suspending the driver’s licenses of people who cannot afford to pay fines and fees for traffic violations.

Briggs v. Montgomery

This case challenges a marijuana diversion program operated by the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office. People who can afford to pay finish the program in 3 months. Those who can’t pay must stay in the program for at least six months or until they pay the fees owed, even if they have satisfied every program requirement other than payment.

Personal Narrative: Nikita Lee Mahoney

Mrs. Mahoney was held for 42 days on a cash bail of $1315 because she was unable to pay a failure to appear charge. The charge was later dropped. However, to avoid imprisonment on a contempt charge, she pled guilty and this resulted in $20,000 additional debt.

Mahoney et al. v. Derrick

Arkansas secures payment of court debt through incarceration, driver’s license suspensions, and probation, for which an additional fee is charged.

Ray et al. v. Judicial Correction Services Inc. et al.

This suit against Judicial Correction Services in Alabama alleges that people were placed on probation without adjudication of their guilt nor sentenced to serve jail time.

Edwards v. Leaders in Community Alternatives

Alameda County contracts with Leaders in Community Alternatives (LCA) to provide court-ordered GPS tracking and alcohol monitoring devices for people on pre-trial or home detention. Although LCA is supposed to charge fees on a sliding scale based on a person’s ability to pay, LCA does not adjust its fees based on a person’s actual financial circumstances and never informs people that reduced fees are available.

Missouri v. Wright

Wright pled guilty to misdemeanor offenses of stealing and resisting arrest. He was sentenced to 90 days in jail and to pay costs including a Board Bill of $1358.28. Wright …