Fighting to End the Unjust Punishment of Court Fees

No one should be punished simply for being poor. Yet, California courts have routinely imposed “court fees” and fines on people without considering their ability to pay. This practice forces thousands of Californians—already struggling to make ends meet—into cycles of escalating court debt, driver’s license suspensions, barriers to expungement, and even jail time. At its core, this system amounts to an extra layer of punishment for poverty, undermining the basic principles of fairness and justice, and violating bedrock constitutional principles prohibiting punishment on the basis of poverty. 

People v. Dueñas: Challenging Fees That Punish Poverty 

People v. Dueñas was a criminal appeal brought on behalf of Velia Dueñas—a low-income mother of two with cerebral palsy who was experiencing homelessness—who was ordered to pay $220 in court fees without any consideration of her ability to pay. Because of citations that she received as a teenager, her driver’s license had been suspended, creating a legal barrier to performing vital tasks, like getting and keeping a job and driving her children to doctor visits or school. As a result of the suspension, Ms. Dueñas suffered additional convictions for driving with a suspended license—convictions that stemmed from her inability to pay earlier fines.  

Each time she could not afford to pay the fines, she had no choice but to serve jail time in lieu of payment—for a total of over fifty days in jail—simply because she was too poor to pay the fines. Even after serving out her time in jail, Ms. Dueñas remained liable for court fees associated with each of her misdemeanor convictions. 

Represented by Public Counsel, Ms. Dueñas challenged the constitutionality of these court fees, arguing that punishing people for being poor violates both state and federal constitutional protections. In a groundbreaking 2019 opinion, the California Second District Court of Appeals agreed, holding that imposing mandatory court fees on indigent defendants without considering their ability to pay violates due process rights. Justice Laurie Zelon, writing for the court, stated: 

Imposing unpayable fines on indigent defendants is not only unfair, it serves no rational purpose, fails to further the legislative intent, and may be counterproductive. 

The Dueñas decision became a landmark in the fight against the criminalization of poverty. For the first time, thousands of indigent people in California had a pathway to escape a system that trapped them in debt, threatened their freedom, and limited their opportunities—all because of court-imposed financial obligations. 

People v. Kopp: Supreme Court Review of the “Ability to Pay” Question 

After the Dueñas decision in 2019, appellate courts across California issued conflicting rulings on whether judges must consider a defendant’s ability to pay before imposing court fines and fees. While some courts followed the reasoning in Dueñas, others disagreed, leading to inconsistent standards statewide. 

To resolve this split, the California Supreme Court granted review in People v. Kopp, a case involving two defendants—Christi Kopp and Jason Hernandez—who jointly appealed aspects of their criminal sentences. They challenged the constitutionality of fines and fees imposed without any determination of their ability to pay, raising the key “ability to pay” question now before the Supreme Court. 

Public Counsel filed an amicus brief in support of the petitioners, urging the Court to protect the rights of low-income Californians and prevent punishment based on poverty. 

The Supreme Court will hear oral argument in Kopp on October 8, 2025—including argument from Public Counsel as counsel for amici. The Court’s ruling is expected to set a uniform statewide standard for how California courts impose criminal fines and fees, with far-reaching implications for Californians now and in the future. 

Update: The California Supreme Court heard oral argument in People v. Kopp on October 8, 2025—including argument of Public Counsel as counsel for amici. The hearing was livestreamed on the Court’s website, and a video recording is available here.