California must stop treating poverty as a funding source | Opinion

The California Supreme Court recently issued a ruling to help identify how much poor Californians must pay in fees and fines when they break a law. The decision strikes an important balance between punishment and fairness, leaving plenty of room for state legislators to make more progress.

In the case, People v. Kopp, the state Supreme Court ruled on Dec. 29 that fines, fees and restitution (monetary sanctions often attached to municipal code infractions and criminal convictions) must be imposed with constitutional guardrails. Fines must be proportional to the offense, and fees must account for a person’s ability to pay.

The ruling also states that courts, upon request, must evaluate a defendant’s financial reality before issuing sanctions. This is not radical — it’s common sense. Yet, in California, where nearly 80% of criminal defendants are indigent, this shift is tectonic.

As an attorney working on issues that impact low-income Californians, I have seen firsthand how court-ordered debt destabilizes families and fuels cycles of poverty. The criminal legal system has operated for decades as a racially targeted revenue machine — tasked not only with punishment, but with raising money through “user fees.” The less you can pay upfront, the more you are charged.

And the poorer you are, the longer you pay. If you cannot pay, the consequences escalate quickly: license suspensions, missed work, warrants and incarceration. Black and brown Californians carry this burden disproportionately because we are disproportionately policed, cited and prosecuted. That is not accidental — it is structural.

How the court struck an important balance

For those of us who have spent years fighting against a criminal legal system funded by the extraction of wealth from poor people, the ruling was both vindication and fuel. It affirmed what community advocates, public defenders and people directly impacted by court debt have said for decades: Punishment must not increase poverty, and the government cannot finance itself by squeezing the poorest among us.

This ruling forces courts to acknowledge the humanity and economic reality of the people they sentence. It draws clear lines between fines (punishment), fees (administrative cost recovery) and restitution (compensation for victims) instead of treating all three as interchangeable revenue streams.

But judicial reform alone will not get us where we need to go. Ability-to-pay hearings are a step forward, but they are not justice. Requiring defendants to “prove” their poverty invites humiliation and bureaucracy. Relying on defense attorneys to raise these issues and judges to apply them consistently is unrealistic when both are already overwhelmed.

If protecting people from financial harm requires the constant intervention of lawyers, expert testimony and individual hearings, then the system itself is the problem.

What purpose does court fees on the poor serve?

The common-sense solution is systemic: abolish what are essentially fees on poverty outright.

Here’s how poverty fees work, according to the Vera Institute: “Jurisdictions impose fines and fees for nearly every type of offense, including traffic violations and minor infractions, which can quickly add up to hundreds or thousands of dollars. And if people cannot afford to pay, they will almost certainly — albeit illogically — face more fines, more fees, jail time and a host of other consequences.”

Sacramento already knows how to abolish poverty fees. Since 2020, California has repealed 46 criminal administrative fees and discharged more than $6.9 billion in court debt.

That made a difference: Families kept their tax refunds; people kept their licenses; and kids had parents at home instead of in jail for nonpayment. That single policy choice put money back into low-income households and shortened the tail of punishment that follows people long after their case is closed. That is racial equity and poverty reduction.

Still, nearly half of the state’s poverty fees remain in place. Courts collect over $70 million annually from people on installment plans — not because these individuals are wealthy enough to pay over time, but because they are too poor to pay up front. In traffic cases, people must pay fees before they can attend traffic school; in community service cases, people pay fees for the privilege of performing unpaid labor.

How Sacramento can help

California lawmakers should eliminate harmful criminal administrative fees outright and end the practice of using fines as revenue generators.

California has the opportunity — and the obligation — to stop treating poverty as a funding source. Families in this state deserve a justice system that values people more than balance sheets. Kopp gets us part of the way there. Now we need the political courage to finish the job. Brandon L. Greene is the director of policy advocacy for the Western Center on Law & Poverty, California’s premier nonprofit public interest social justice law organization.