OKLAHOMA CITY, Okla. — Some Oklahoma judges have refused to waive court fines and fees for low-income defendants despite a 2023 state law requiring financial relief for eligible individuals, according to an Oct. 26 investigation by KOSU and The Frontier.
The investigation found that Oklahoma County Special District Judge April Collins has declined to eliminate court debt for defendants who demonstrated an inability to pay, citing concerns about the constitutionality of the law.
One of those decisions is now being challenged before the Oklahoma Supreme Court, which has been asked to resolve whether the Legislature can require judges to waive qualifying court debt for people experiencing financial hardship.
The dispute centers on House Bill 2259, signed into law by Gov. Kevin Stitt in 2023. Under Oklahoma Statutes Title 22, Section 983, courts must consider a defendant’s financial circumstances when determining the ability to pay court-imposed fines, fees and costs.
The law requires partial or complete hardship waivers when defendants meet the statutory criteria for relief. It also establishes a presumption of inability to pay for individuals receiving qualifying government assistance or earning less than 150% of the federal poverty level.
Qualifying assistance includes Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits, certain forms of financial assistance and government housing subsidies.
Defendants can request an ability-to-pay determination during sentencing or after financial obligations have been imposed. Courts may examine income, expenses, public assistance and other financial circumstances when evaluating eligibility.
One defendant identified in the investigation was Archie Riley, 67, who owed $1,358 in court fines and fees following a 2025 conviction for driving under the influence without a valid license.
According to KOSU and The Frontier, Riley has severe arthritis that limits his ability to work, lacks permanent housing, receives food assistance and Supplemental Security Income, and lives below the federal poverty level.
Despite those circumstances, Collins denied Riley’s request for a hardship waiver in July, even though court documents acknowledged that he had presented sufficient evidence of his inability to pay.
Rather than eliminating the financial obligations, Collins entered a judgment that could allow collection efforts against Riley’s future income, according to the investigation.
The decision left Riley responsible for the $1,358 debt despite financial circumstances that would ordinarily support relief under the statute.
Collins has questioned whether the mandatory waiver requirements violate Article V, Section 53 of the Oklahoma Constitution, which restricts the Legislature’s authority to release debts owed to the state or local governments.
The constitutional dispute concerns whether requiring courts to eliminate certain financial obligations for indigent defendants amounts to an impermissible release of public debt or represents a valid exercise of legislative authority over criminal fines and fees.
An attorney representing Riley through Legal Aid Services of Oklahoma challenged Collins’ decision before the Oklahoma Supreme Court.
According to KOSU and The Frontier, arguments were presented to a Supreme Court referee in September, and a decision remained pending as of Oct. 26.
The investigation also documented differences in how judges have implemented the law.
While some judges have declined to grant hardship waivers, Legal Aid Services of Oklahoma reported helping defendants obtain more than $2.1 million in waived court debt as of Oct. 19.
The law does not extend to every financial obligation imposed in criminal proceedings.
Under Section 983, eligible obligations include certain fines, fees, court costs and assessments. Restitution, which is intended to compensate victims for losses resulting from criminal offenses, is excluded from the hardship waiver provisions.
As a result, defendants may qualify for relief from court-imposed financial obligations while remaining responsible for restitution owed directly to victims.
The dispute in Oklahoma also reflects broader legal questions about how courts should account for poverty when imposing financial penalties.
California has addressed similar issues through judicial decisions and statutory procedures, although its legal framework differs from Oklahoma’s mandatory waiver requirements.
In the California Supreme Court’s 2025 decision in People v. Kopp, the court distinguished between punitive fines and certain nonpunitive court assessments when considering constitutional protections for defendants who cannot afford to pay.
The court held that due process does not categorically require an ability-to-pay hearing before punitive criminal fines are imposed. However, equal protection principles require consideration of inability to pay certain nonpunitive assessments when a defendant properly raises the issue.
California also provides an ability-to-pay process for eligible infraction offenses under Rule 4.335 of the California Rules of Court, allowing qualifying individuals to seek reduced financial obligations, payment plans or alternatives such as community service.
Under California Penal Code Section 1202.4, courts generally cannot waive mandatory minimum restitution fines solely because a defendant lacks the financial resources to pay them. Courts also cannot consider a defendant’s inability to pay when determining the amount of direct restitution owed to victims.
Unlike California’s framework, the Oklahoma litigation directly challenges a legislative requirement that judges provide hardship relief when defendants satisfy statutory eligibility standards.
The Oklahoma Supreme Court has not yet ruled on Riley’s challenge, leaving unresolved whether the state Constitution permits the mandatory debt waivers established by the 2023 law.
To comment please go to one of these social media platforms:
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/DavisVanguard
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/peoples-vanguard-of-davis-inc/
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/davisvanguard/
X: https://x.com/davisvanguard
Bluesky: https://bsky.app/profile/vanguardnewsgroup.bsky.social
Subscribe to 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.
