How Cities and Courts Can Reduce Financial Hardship Caused by Court Fees
Court fees and legal costs are an often-overlooked part of the justice system, but for millions of people across the United States, they can become a serious and long-lasting financial burden. While the right to legal representation is constitutionally guaranteed, the reality of how courts fund and administer justice tells a far more complicated story. Recent research and policy discussions are now shedding light on how municipalities, courts, and states can reduce the financial strain placed on low-income individuals who come into contact with the criminal legal system.
At the center of this discussion is the growing recognition that court fines and fees disproportionately harm people living at or below the poverty line, often pushing them deeper into debt even when they are not convicted or incarcerated. With the federal poverty level set at $32,150 for a family of four, even a single court bill can force families to choose between paying legal debt and covering basic necessities like rent, utilities, or groceries.
Why Court Fees Create Such Heavy Financial Pressure
Every person accused of a crime has the right to an attorney, including access to a public defender if they cannot afford private legal counsel. However, what many people don’t realize is that public defenders are not always free. In fact, most U.S. states charge defendants fees for using public defense services, even though those services are rooted in constitutional protections.
Research shows that only seven states do not charge public defender fees, and Rhode Island is one of them. In contrast, states like Virginia routinely charge defendants hundreds or even thousands of dollars for public defense representation. These costs are imposed regardless of whether a person is ultimately found guilty or serves jail time, creating a system where legal debt exists independently of criminal punishment.
This raises a critical question: at what point does paying one’s debt to society become financially punitive, especially for people who were never in a position to pay in the first place?
The Push for Ability-to-Pay Assessments
One of the most promising solutions gaining traction nationwide is the implementation of ability-to-pay assessments. These assessments require courts to evaluate a person’s financial situation before imposing fines or fees, ensuring that penalties are proportionate and realistic.
University of Rhode Island criminologist Brittany T. Martin has been at the forefront of this research. She recently presented her findings at a national workshop in Houston titled “Assessing Ability to Pay: How Courts Can Ensure Fair and Effective Fines and Fees Practices.” The event was organized by Results for America in partnership with the Fines and Fees Justice Center and brought together court officials, advocates, and municipal representatives from across the country.
The goal of the workshop was practical and policy-driven: to help jurisdictions design systems that reduce unpayable legal debt while maintaining accountability. These systems include sliding-scale fines, payment plans, community service alternatives, and fee waivers for people deemed indigent.
Municipal workers attending the workshop were actively seeking guidance on how to support individuals involved in the criminal court system without allowing legal costs to spiral into long-term financial crises.
Public Defender Fees and Constitutional Concerns
A key focus of Martin’s work is the contradiction between constitutional rights and state-level practices. While the right to legal representation is well established, charging people for accessing that right raises serious equity concerns. When low-income defendants are billed for public defenders, the justice system effectively transforms a constitutional safeguard into a financial obligation.
Martin’s research highlights how this practice disproportionately affects poor individuals, many of whom already face unstable employment, housing insecurity, or limited access to credit. Assessing ability to pay becomes especially important in this context, as uniform fees fail to account for vast differences in financial capacity.
Traffic Offenses and the Cycle of Legal Debt
In addition to public defense fees, Martin has also studied how criminalizing minor traffic offenses can deepen inequality. She recently co-authored a study examining Georgia’s traffic enforcement system, which relies heavily on probation-based payment structures. Under this system, people who cannot immediately pay traffic fines are placed on probation, accumulating additional supervision fees and penalties over time.
The study found that this approach entrenches inequality by extending state control over individuals who pose little public safety risk. Instead of resolving a traffic ticket, people often find themselves trapped in cycles of debt and supervision, a process Martin and her co-authors describe as “debtors’ probation.”
The research recommends ending pay-only probation systems and decriminalizing minor traffic offenses, allowing states to reduce administrative costs while minimizing harm to low-income residents.
The Hidden Costs of Probation and Community Supervision
One of the most striking findings from Martin’s research is that many people burdened by legal debt were never incarcerated. Instead, they spent long periods on probation or under community supervision. While this may appear less severe than jail time, it often comes with monthly supervision fees, court costs, and compliance expenses that accumulate quickly.
Extended supervision also makes it harder for individuals to secure stable employment, particularly when criminal records limit job opportunities. This creates a compounding effect: people are expected to pay increasing legal costs while simultaneously facing barriers to earning income.
The result is a system that undermines reintegration, despite claiming to support it.
Rhode Island as a Case Study
Martin is currently leading a new research project focused on Rhode Island’s state courts, examining how different counties handle fee waivers for indigent individuals. Along with five undergraduate students, she is collecting data from the four state county courts — Providence, Newport, Kent, and Washington — to identify discrepancies in how financial hardship is assessed and addressed.
This project is supported by a Russell Sage Foundation grant awarded in August, underscoring growing national interest in evidence-based legal reform. The findings are expected to help policymakers understand how inconsistent practices across jurisdictions can lead to unequal outcomes, even within the same state.
What Municipalities Can Do Moving Forward
Municipal governments play a crucial role in reforming fines and fees because local courts often rely on them as revenue sources. However, this reliance can conflict with principles of fairness and justice. Experts increasingly argue that court systems should not be funded on the backs of the poorest residents.
Reform strategies gaining support include eliminating mandatory fees, offering meaningful alternatives to monetary penalties, and investing in administrative systems that prioritize fairness over revenue collection. When courts reduce unpayable debt, they also reduce costly enforcement actions like warrants, license suspensions, and repeated court appearances.
A Shift Toward Fairer Justice
The broader takeaway from this research is clear: financial penalties should not function as hidden punishments that extend long after a case is resolved. By adopting ability-to-pay assessments and rethinking how fines and fees are imposed, municipalities can reduce financial hardship while improving trust in the justice system.
As more cities and states engage with researchers, advocates, and court stakeholders, the momentum for reform continues to grow. The challenge now lies in translating evidence into policy — and ensuring that justice does not come with a price tag that only some can afford.
Research reference:
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/00938548251353743
