- “While a defendant’s poverty does not make him any less subject to punishment for violating the law, our justice system must not punish a defendant, more harshly, simply because he is poor.” – Justice Goodwin Liu
MONTEREY, Calif. — The California Supreme Court ruled Monday that courts must consider a person’s inability to pay before imposing certain mandatory court fees and assessments, marking a major decision in the state’s ongoing effort to reduce the criminalization of poverty and address the disparate impact of court debt on low-income Californians.
In People v. Kopp, the court held that while punitive fines are generally governed by constitutional limits on excessive punishment, courts must evaluate a defendant’s ability to pay before imposing nonpunitive court operations and court facilities assessments. Those fees, which are imposed in nearly all criminal cases to fund the judicial system, may not be levied automatically on people who lack the financial means to pay them.
The decision resolves years of conflicting appellate rulings that followed the Court of Appeal’s 2019 decision in People v. Dueñas, which had required courts to consider ability to pay before imposing many criminal fines and fees. Since then, lower courts across California had reached sharply different conclusions, leading to inconsistent outcomes for defendants depending on where their cases were heard.
Writing for the majority, Justice Carol Corrigan explained that challenges to criminal fines must generally be analyzed under the federal and state constitutional prohibitions on excessive fines, while court-imposed administrative assessments raise separate equal protection concerns. The court concluded that, upon request, judges must consider a defendant’s inability to pay before imposing a court operations assessment under Penal Code section 1465.8 or a court facilities assessment under Government Code section 70373.
“Upon request, a court must consider a defendant’s inability to pay before imposing a court operations assessment … or a court facilities assessment,” the opinion states. The court also urged lawmakers to take further action, writing, “Although our holding resolves the orders in this particular case, we urge the Legislature to revisit issues surrounding court-ordered ancillary payments in criminal cases and address them in a more comprehensive manner.”
The case traces back to the landmark Dueñas decision, which arose from the experience of Velia Dueñas, a low-income mother of two with cerebral palsy who was experiencing homelessness. Dueñas was repeatedly assessed court fees she could not afford to pay, a cycle that led to mounting debt, repeated prosecutions for driving with a suspended license, and ultimately jail time.
Public Counsel represented Dueñas and successfully argued on appeal that imposing fines and fees without considering a person’s ability to pay violated constitutional principles of due process and equal protection. The ruling was widely cited by defense attorneys and advocates as a turning point in California’s approach to court debt, but it also sparked disagreement among appellate courts over its scope and legal foundation.
The Supreme Court granted review in People v. Kopp to resolve that disagreement. The consolidated case involved two defendants, Christi Kopp and Jason Hernandez, who challenged fines and fees imposed as part of their criminal sentences without any determination of their ability to pay. Although the factual background of the case involved serious and violent conduct, the court emphasized that the constitutional questions before it were legal in nature and concerned the structure of court-imposed financial obligations.
Public Counsel, which had prevailed in Dueñas, filed an amicus brief in Kopp and participated in oral argument, urging the court to reaffirm the principle that people should not be punished more harshly simply because they are poor.
In a statement released after the ruling, Public Counsel President and CEO Kathryn Eidmann said the decision represents meaningful progress even though the court adopted a narrower constitutional framework than Dueñas.
“Criminalizing poverty is wrong, harms our communities, and perpetuates hardship and injustice,” Eidmann said. “While today’s ruling adopts a narrower constitutional framework than Dueñas, it affirms a core principle our work helped advance: courts must consider a person’s inability to pay before imposing certain court assessments. This holding is a meaningful step toward a justice system that does not punish people for poverty. We join the Court in strongly urging the Legislature to build on this decision and take further steps to end poverty-based court debt.”
Justice Goodwin Liu, joined by Acting Chief Justice Joshua Groban, elaborated on the broader implications of the decision in a concurring opinion that highlighted the risk of uneven treatment across California courts absent legislative reform.
“Because these critical issues will likely result in differing approaches in the lower courts and disparities in treatment of indigent criminal defendants throughout the state, I join the court in urging the legislature to consider further reforms,” Liu wrote. He added that those reforms should be guided by “a basic corollary to the principle of equal justice under the law: While a defendant’s poverty does not make him any less subject to punishment for violating the law, our justice system must not punish a defendant, more harshly, simply because he is poor.”
The majority opinion carefully distinguishes between different categories of court-ordered financial obligations. Punitive fines, such as restitution fines imposed as punishment for a crime, are governed by the excessive fines clauses of the U.S. and California constitutions. Those clauses prohibit fines that are grossly disproportionate to the offense but do not categorically require an ability-to-pay determination before fines are imposed.
By contrast, the court held that nonpunitive assessments imposed to fund court operations and facilities trigger equal protection concerns. The court noted that in civil cases, California law provides a robust fee waiver system to ensure court access for people with limited financial means, while criminal defendants have historically been denied similar protections for these administrative assessments.
“The Legislature enacted both civil and criminal operations and facilities assessments to raise money for the courts,” the opinion explains, pointing out that the funds are deposited into the same accounts and serve the same purposes. Yet only civil litigants have access to fee waivers, a disparity the court concluded lacks a rational basis.
Both the defendants and the Attorney General agreed that this unequal treatment could not be justified under equal protection principles. The court relied in part on the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1972 decision in James v. Strange, which struck down a statute that subjected indigent criminal defendants to harsher debt collection practices than other civil debtors.
In reaching its holding, the court also addressed legislative changes enacted in recent years to reduce court debt. In 2020, the Legislature passed Assembly Bill 1869, which eliminated a range of administrative fees and rendered previously imposed fees uncollectible, including booking fees and charges for court-appointed counsel. More recently, lawmakers enacted provisions that make unpaid restitution fines unenforceable after a specified period.
The Supreme Court applied those statutes in Kopp, vacating unpaid portions of certain fees and directing lower courts to reassess others consistent with current law. However, the court made clear that its ruling does not eliminate all fines or fees, nor does it absolve defendants of punishment for criminal conduct.
As Justice Corrigan wrote, “A defendant’s poverty in no way immunizes him from punishment.” At the same time, the court emphasized that the Constitution forbids a system in which people are punished more severely simply because they lack financial resources.
The decision is expected to have wide-ranging effects across California’s criminal courts, particularly for low-income defendants who routinely face hundreds or thousands of dollars in mandatory fees at sentencing. Legal advocates say the ruling will require courts to hold ability-to-pay hearings when defendants request them and could reduce the accumulation of court debt that often leads to license suspensions, collection actions and further entanglement with the justice system.
Public Counsel and other advocates are now calling on the Legislature to go further by enacting comprehensive reforms that eliminate poverty-based court debt altogether.
The Supreme Court echoed that call, concluding its opinion with a pointed message to lawmakers. While the court resolved the constitutional questions before it, the justices made clear that durable solutions to the problem of court debt must come from legislative action rather than case-by-case litigation.
Follow the Vanguard on Social Media – X, Instagram and Facebook. Subscribe the Vanguard News letters. To make a tax-deductible donation, please visit davisvanguard.org/donate or give directly through ActBlue. Your support will ensure that the vital work of the Vanguard continues.
