I 
117TH CONGRESS 
1ST SESSION H. R. 5646 
To amend the State Justice Institute Act of 1984 to provide technical assist-
ance and training to State and local courts to improve the constitutional 
and equitable enforcement of fines and fees, and for other purposes. 
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
OCTOBER 20, 2021 
Mr. NADLER introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
Committee on the Judiciary 
A BILL 
To amend the State Justice Institute Act of 1984 to provide 
technical assistance and training to State and local 
courts to improve the constitutional and equitable en-
forcement of fines and fees, and for other purposes. 
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa-
tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 
This Act may be cited as the ‘‘State Justice Improve-
ment Act’’. 
SEC. 2. FINDINGS; PURPOSE. 
(a) FINDINGS.—Congress finds the following: 
VerDate Sep 11 2014 
01:21 Oct 23, 2021
Jkt 029200
PO 00000
Frm 00001
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H5646.IH
H5646
ctelli on DSK11ZRN23PROD with BILLS
(1) The Supreme Court of the United States 
has repeatedly held that the government may not in-
carcerate an individual solely because of the inability 
of the individual to pay a fine or fee. 
(2) In 2019, the United States Court of Ap-
peals for the Fifth Circuit ruled that it is unconsti-
tutional to imprison people for failing to pay fines 
and fees without inquiring into their ability to pay. 
The Fifth Circuit also ruled that it is unconstitu-
tional for judges to determine ability to pay when 
court debts help pay court budgets. 
(3) Under section 3142 of title 18, United 
States Code, Federal judicial officers may not im-
pose a financial condition that results in the pretrial 
detention of an individual. 
(4) In 2017, a report by United States Com-
mission on Civil Rights evaluated evidence that— 
(A) 47 states increased their fines and fees 
in recent years, including fines and fees im-
posed on juveniles; 
(B) in Virginia, 1 in 6 drivers had license 
revoked as a result of an inability to pay court 
fines and fees; 
VerDate Sep 11 2014 
01:21 Oct 23, 2021
Jkt 029200
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H5646.IH
H5646
ctelli on DSK11ZRN23PROD with BILLS
(C) in New Jersey, 42 percent of sus-
pended drivers lost their jobs as a result of the 
suspension; 
(D) in the 50 cities with the highest pro-
portion of revenues from fines, the median size 
of the African-American population in each city 
was greater than 5 times the median in the 
United States; 
(E) in Washington, Latinos received higher 
fine assessments than non-Latino Whites for 
similar offenses; 
(F) 10 counties in California detained ap-
proximately 700 people per month for an aver-
age of 3 days as a result of a failure to pay and 
driving with a suspended license; and 
(G) according to the Department of Jus-
tice on the investigation of the Ferguson Police 
Department, revenue collection, not public safe-
ty, was the primary impetus behind the collec-
tion of fines and fees. 
(5) There is no clear evidence that fines and 
fees are an effective crime deterrent. 
(6) Defendants released from custody with no 
financial penalty return to court at the same rate as 
defendants released on financial bond. 
VerDate Sep 11 2014 
01:21 Oct 23, 2021
Jkt 029200
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H5646.IH
H5646
ctelli on DSK11ZRN23PROD with BILLS
(7) The burden of fines and fees is dispropor-
tionately shouldered by low-income communities and 
communities of color, which in turn aggravates and 
perpetuates poverty and racial inequalities. 
(8) Cities with larger Black populations fine 
residents more on a per capita basis and are more 
reliant on fines. A 1-percent increase in a Black 
population is associated with a 5-percent increase in 
per capita revenue from fines and a 1-percent in-
crease in share of total revenue from fines. 
(9) In addition, data on the extent to which in-
dividuals are jailed or otherwise penalized because of 
their inability to pay fee-only offenses are insuffi-
ciently developed, preventing a full picture of the 
pervasiveness of targeted fees, as well as the repet-
itive impact on individuals from both low-income 
communities and communities of color. 
(10) Individuals gave up necessities like rent, 
food, medical bills, car payments, and child support, 
in order to pay down their court debt. 
(11) Thirty-eight percent of people surveyed 
committed a crime to pay off their court debt. 
(12) Driver’s licenses are often suspended auto-
matically when cases are transferred to private col-
VerDate Sep 11 2014 
01:21 Oct 23, 2021
Jkt 029200
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H5646.IH
H5646
ctelli on DSK11ZRN23PROD with BILLS
lectors and are not restored until debts are paid in 
full. 
(13) Thirty States continue to require payment 
of all legal financial obligations before voting rights 
are restored, effectively disenfranchising individuals 
because of an inability to pay. 
(14) Many jurisdictions across the country rely 
on fines and fees as a primary revenue source. 
(15) A 2019 analysis of fine revenues found 
that— 
(A) fines are a critical source of funding, 
at times accounting for more than half of all 
general revenues; 
(B) fines and fees account for more than 
10 percent of general fund revenues for nearly 
600 jurisdictions, and in at least 284 of those, 
the share exceeded 20 percent, while another 80 
governments reported even higher fines ac-
counting for more than half of general reve-
nues; 
(C) annual revenues exceeding $100 for 
every adult resident, while 363 exceeded $200 
per adult in all the governments analyzed; 
VerDate Sep 11 2014 
01:21 Oct 23, 2021
Jkt 029200
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H5646.IH
H5646
ctelli on DSK11ZRN23PROD with BILLS
(D) the States with the highest fines and 
fees revenue are Arkansas, Georgia, Louisiana, 
New York, Oklahoma, and Texas; and 
(E) jurisdictions where fines and forfeit-
ures accounted for more than 20 percent of 
general fund revenues recorded a median house-
hold income of only $39,594. 
(16) The dependency on fines and fees creates 
a harmful incentive for courts to levy fines and fees 
on indigent individuals regardless of the severity of 
the crime. 
(17) However, some jurisdiction spent more 
than the revenue they raised collecting fees, there-
fore losing money through this system. 
(18) In some jurisdictions like New Orleans, 
the cost of incarcerating individuals unable to pay 
fines, fees, and monetary bail exceeded the revenue 
generated from those practices. 
(19) Some jurisdictions in Texas and New Mex-
ico spent 41 cents of every dollar of revenue they 
raise from fees and fines on in-court hearings and 
jail costs alone. 
(20) In almost every State and the District of 
Columbia, juvenile courts impose court costs, fines, 
and fees on youth, their families, or both. These 
VerDate Sep 11 2014 
01:21 Oct 23, 2021
Jkt 029200
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H5646.IH
H5646
ctelli on DSK11ZRN23PROD with BILLS
costs may increase recidivism, increase the potential 
of future jail or prison time, exacerbate racial in-
equality, and increase the economic and emotional 
distress of low-income families. 
(21) Imposing fines and fees on minors and 
their families is ineffective as a revenue-generating 
measure, often because minors in the criminal jus-
tice system come from indigent families. Imposing 
these fines and fees increases recidivism and eco-
nomic and emotional hardship on families. 
(b) PURPOSE.—The purpose of this Act is to create 
a grant program to provide technical assistance and train-
ing to State and local courts to— 
(1) improve the constitutional and equitable en-
forcement of fines and fees; 
(2) improve practices regarding the use of fines 
and fees and their equitable enforcement when used; 
and 
(3) collect data to better understand the re-
search and best practices of State and local courts 
on a Federal level. 
SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS. 
Section 202 of the State Justice Institute Act of 1984 
(42 U.S.C. 10701) is amended— 
VerDate Sep 11 2014 
01:21 Oct 23, 2021
Jkt 029200
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H5646.IH
H5646
ctelli on DSK11ZRN23PROD with BILLS
(1) in paragraph (7), by striking ‘‘and’’ at the 
end; 
(2) in paragraph (8), by striking the period at 
the end and inserting a semicolon; and 
(3) by adding at the end the following: 
‘‘(9) ‘constitutionally adequate notice’ means a 
citation or summons that adequately informs an in-
dividual of— 
‘‘(A) the precise offense with which the in-
dividual is charged; 
‘‘(B) the amount currently owed by the in-
dividual and other possible penalties; 
‘‘(C) consequences for nonpayment; 
‘‘(D) the method and means for accepting 
payments; 
‘‘(E) the date of any court hearing; 
‘‘(F) the availability of alternate means of 
payment; 
‘‘(G) the rules and procedures of the court; 
‘‘(H) the rights of the individual as a liti-
gant; and 
‘‘(I) whether the individual is required to 
appear in court in person; 
‘‘(10) ‘fees’— 
VerDate Sep 11 2014 
01:21 Oct 23, 2021
Jkt 029200
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H5646.IH
H5646
ctelli on DSK11ZRN23PROD with BILLS
‘‘(A) means monetary fees that are im-
posed for the costs of fine surcharges or court 
administrative fees; and 
‘‘(B) includes additional late fees, pay-
ment-plan fees, interest added if an individual 
is unable to pay a fine in its entirety, collection 
fees, and any additional amounts that do not 
include the fine; 
‘‘(11) ‘fines’ means monetary fines imposed for 
punishment; and 
‘‘(12) ‘surcharge’ means a monetary amount 
added to a fine as a flat amount or a percentage.’’. 
SEC. 4. CONSTITUTIONAL ENFORCEMENT OF FINES AND 
FEES. 
(a) DUTIES OF THE INSTITUTE.—Section 203(b) of 
the State Justice Institute Act of 1984 (42 U.S.C. 
10702(b)) is amended— 
(1) in paragraph (3), by striking ‘‘and’’ at the 
end; 
(2) in paragraph (4), by striking the period at 
the end and inserting ‘‘; and’’; and 
(3) by adding at the end the following: 
‘‘(5) assist State and local courts in the con-
stitutional and equitable enforcement of fines and 
fees.’’. 
VerDate Sep 11 2014 
01:21 Oct 23, 2021
Jkt 029200
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H5646.IH
H5646
ctelli on DSK11ZRN23PROD with BILLS
(b) PURPOSES OF GRANTS.— 
(1) IN GENERAL.—Section 206(a) of the State 
Justice Institute Act of 1984 (42 U.S.C. 10705(a)) 
is amended— 
(A) in paragraph (6), by striking ‘‘and’’ at 
the end; 
(B) in paragraph (7), by striking the pe-
riod at the end and inserting ‘‘; and’’; and 
(C) by adding at the end the following: 
‘‘(8) provide technical assistance and training 
to State and local courts to develop and implement 
best policies and practices for the constitutional and 
equitable enforcement of fines and fees that incor-
porate guidance that— 
‘‘(A) courts should not incarcerate or issue 
an arrest warrant for an individual for the non-
payment of a fine or fee without first con-
ducting an ability-to-pay determination and es-
tablishing that the failure to pay was inten-
tional; 
‘‘(B) courts should consider alternatives to 
incarceration for defendants who are currently 
unable to pay fines; 
‘‘(C) courts should not condition access to 
a judicial hearing on the prepayment of a fine 
VerDate Sep 11 2014 
01:21 Oct 23, 2021
Jkt 029200
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H5646.IH
H5646
ctelli on DSK11ZRN23PROD with BILLS
or fee or a promise of future payment of a fine 
or fee; 
‘‘(D) courts should provide constitutionally 
adequate notices and counsel in cases in which 
a fine or fee will be imposed; 
‘‘(E) courts should not initiate driver’s li-
cense suspension procedures for nonpayment of 
a fine or fee; 
‘‘(F) if courts choose to issue an arrest 
warrant or suspend a driver’s license as a 
means of coercing an individual to pay a fine or 
fee owed to the court, courts should not do so 
if the individual has not been afforded constitu-
tionally adequate procedural protections; 
‘‘(G) courts should determine the ability to 
pay of an individual at sentencing prior to de-
termining a constitutional and equitable fine 
and fee; 
‘‘(H) courts should reduce and waive fines 
and fees if the court has discretion in cases 
where the imposition of fines and fees would be 
unconstitutional and inequitable or cause undue 
hardship to the individual; 
‘‘(I) courts should avoid adopting manda-
tory fines and fees for misdemeanors and traf-
VerDate Sep 11 2014 
01:21 Oct 23, 2021
Jkt 029200
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H5646.IH
H5646
ctelli on DSK11ZRN23PROD with BILLS
fic-related and other low-level offenses and in-
fractions; 
‘‘(J) courts should grant judges the au-
thority and discretion to modify sanctions after 
sentencing if the circumstances of the defend-
ant change, including that the ability of the de-
fendant to pay a fine or fee becomes a hard-
ship; 
‘‘(K) courts should adopt education re-
quirements for judges and court personnel on 
issues related to all relevant constitutional and 
procedural principles relating to fines and fees; 
‘‘(L) courts should not impose a fine, fee, 
or any other penalty for the participation of an 
individual in community service programs or 
other alternative sanctions; 
‘‘(M) if courts utilize community service 
programs or alternative service sanctions, best 
practice and standards for those programs 
should be used, including fair wage attribution, 
caps on number of hours performed, and per-
missible activities of service; 
‘‘(N) courts should not order or extend 
probation or other court-ordered supervision ex-
VerDate Sep 11 2014 
01:21 Oct 23, 2021
Jkt 029200
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H5646.IH
H5646
ctelli on DSK11ZRN23PROD with BILLS
clusively for the purpose of collecting fines, fees, 
or costs; 
‘‘(O) courts should not charge interest on 
payment plans entered into by a defendant, re-
spondent, or probationer; and 
‘‘(P) courts should consider the use of 
community service credits such as completing 
community service hours, domestic violence 
counseling, and drug treatment programs, as an 
alternative to payments.’’. 
(2) REGULATIONS.—Not later than 90 days 
after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Ex-
ecutive Director of the State Justice Institute shall 
promulgate regulations to implement the amend-
ments made by paragraph (1), including— 
(A) the information that shall be included 
in an application for funding under section 206 
of the State Justice Institute Act of 1984 (42 
U.S.C. 10705); and 
(B) any other requirements applicable to 
grantees under that section. 
(c) RECORDS AND REPORTS.—Section 211(a) of the 
State Justice Institute Act of 1984 (42 U.S.C. 10710(a)) 
is amended— 
VerDate Sep 11 2014 
01:21 Oct 23, 2021
Jkt 029200
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H5646.IH
H5646
ctelli on DSK11ZRN23PROD with BILLS
(1) by striking ‘‘The Institute’’ and inserting 
‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—The Institute’’; and 
(2) by adding at the end the following: 
‘‘(2) REPORT ON FINES AND FEES.— 
‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—The Institute shall re-
quire that a recipient of a grant awarded for 
the purpose described in paragraph (8) of sec-
tion 206(a) shall submit to the Institute an an-
nual report that includes, for the previous 12- 
month period— 
‘‘(i) the number of new admissions to 
jail or prison due to failures to pay fines 
or fees; 
‘‘(ii) the number of new admissions to 
jail or prison due to failure to appear when 
the underlying offense is a failure to pay 
a fine or fee; 
‘‘(iii) the number and type of alter-
natives considered for defendants who are 
unable to pay fees and fines; 
‘‘(iv) the number of times a judicial 
hearing was contingent upon the prepay-
ment of fines and fees, including hearing 
fees if the court deems the defendant ineli-
gible for a fee waiver; 
VerDate Sep 11 2014 
01:21 Oct 23, 2021
Jkt 029200
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H5646.IH
H5646
ctelli on DSK11ZRN23PROD with BILLS
‘‘(v) the number of times constitu-
tionally adequate notices were provided to 
counsel in cases in which a fine or fee will 
be imposed; 
‘‘(vi) the number of times an arrest 
warrant or driver’s license suspension was 
used as a means of coercing an individual 
to pay a fine or fee owed to the court; 
‘‘(vii) the number of additional fees 
imposed by the department of motor vehi-
cles to get a driver’s license reinstated or 
suspension lifted; 
‘‘(viii) the number of times monetary 
bail practices were used that caused de-
fendants to stay incarcerated due to their 
inability to pay a fine or fee; 
‘‘(ix) the number of times voter dis-
enfranchisement was used as a result of an 
individual’s inability to pay a fine or a fee 
owed to the court; 
‘‘(x) a disaggregation of the data de-
scribed in this subparagraph by race, gen-
der, and disability status; and 
VerDate Sep 11 2014 
01:21 Oct 23, 2021
Jkt 029200
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H5646.IH
H5646
ctelli on DSK11ZRN23PROD with BILLS
‘‘(xi) any other additional statistical 
data that the Director determines should 
be collected and reported. 
‘‘(B) WAIVER.—The Director shall have 
discretion to waive statistical data reporting re-
quirements under subparagraph (A) that are 
not available to a recipient of a grant. 
‘‘(C) REPORT TO CONGRESS.—The Insti-
tute shall submit to the Bureau of Justice Sta-
tistics and to the Committee on Appropriations 
and Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate 
and the Committee on Appropriations and the 
Committee on the Judiciary of the House of 
Representatives an annual report on the data 
submitted under subparagraph (A).’’. 
(d) STUDY.— 
(1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 3 years after 
the date on which grants are first awarded for the 
purpose described in paragraph (8) of section 206(a) 
of the State Justice Institute Act of 1984, as added 
by subsection (b) of this section, the Executive Di-
rector of the State Justice Institute shall conduct a 
study on the effectiveness such grants on the con-
stitutional enforcement of targeted fines and fees by 
State and local courts. 
VerDate Sep 11 2014 
01:21 Oct 23, 2021
Jkt 029200
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H5646.IH
H5646
ctelli on DSK11ZRN23PROD with BILLS
(2) REPORT.—Not later than 180 days after 
the date on which the Executive Director of the 
State Justice Institute completes the study under 
paragraph (1), the Executive Director shall submit 
to Congress a report on the study and any policy 
recommendations that the Executive Director deter-
mines are appropriate. 
(e) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—Section 
215 of the State Justice Institute Act of 1984 (42 U.S.C. 
10713) is amended, in the first sentence by striking 
‘‘$7,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2005, 2006, 2007, 
and 2008’’ and inserting ‘‘$27,000,000 for each of fiscal 
years 2022 through 2027, of which $20,000,000 shall be 
authorized to be appropriated for grants under paragraph 
(8) of section 206(a)’’. 
Æ 
VerDate Sep 11 2014 
01:21 Oct 23, 2021
Jkt 029200
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6301
E:\BILLS\H5646.IH
H5646
ctelli on DSK11ZRN23PROD with BILLS