Title: State Justice Improvement Act
Policy area: Law

Summary:
State Justice Improvement Act
This bill reauthorizes through FY2027 the State Justice Institute, a nonprofit corporation established by federal law, and authorizes the institute to award grants for the development and implementation of best policies and practices for the constitutional and equitable enforcement of fines and fees.  Specifically, the institute may award these grants to state and local courts, nonprofit organizations, institutions of higher education, and other specified entities. The policies and practices must incorporate guidance that courts should, among other things, consider alternatives to incarceration for defendants who are unable to pay fines.

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 3024 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>






117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 3024

 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 enforcement of fines and fees, and for 
                            other purposes.


_______________________________________________________________________


                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            October 20, 2021

 Mr. Schatz (for himself, Mr. Wyden, Mr. Blumenthal, Mr. Merkley, Mr. 
    Booker, Ms. Smith, Mr. Kaine, and Ms. Klobuchar) introduced the 
 following bill; which was read twice and 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 enforcement of fines and fees, and for 
                            other purposes.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``State Justice Improvement Act''.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS; PURPOSE.

    (a) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
            (1) The Supreme Court of the United States has repeatedly 
        held that the government may not incarcerate an individual 
        solely because of the inability of the individual to pay a fine 
        or fee.
            (2) In 2019, the United States Court of Appeals for the 
        Fifth Circuit ruled that it is unconstitutional 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 
        unconstitutional 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 impose a financial condition 
        that results in the pretrial detention of an individual.
            (4) In 2017, a report by United States Commission on Civil 
        Rights evaluated evidence that--
                    (A) 47 states increased their fines and fees in 
                recent years, including fines and fees imposed on 
                juveniles;
                    (B) in Virginia, 1 in 6 drivers had license revoked 
                as a result of an inability to pay court fines and 
                fees;
                    (C) in New Jersey, 42 percent of suspended drivers 
                lost their jobs as a result of the suspension;
                    (D) in the 50 cities with the highest proportion 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 
                approximately 700 people per month for an average of 3 
                days as a result of a failure to pay and driving with a 
                suspended license; and
                    (G) according to the Department of Justice on the 
                investigation of the Ferguson Police Department, 
                revenue collection, not public safety, was the primary 
                impetus behind the collection 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.
            (7) The burden of fines and fees is disproportionately 
        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 increase in share of total revenue from fines.
            (9) In addition, data on the extent to which individuals 
        are jailed or otherwise penalized because of their inability to 
        pay fee-only offenses are insufficiently developed, preventing 
        a full picture of the pervasiveness of targeted fees, as well 
        as the repetitive 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 automatically 
        when cases are transferred to private collectors 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 accounting for more than half of general 
                revenues;
                    (C) annual revenues exceeding $100 for every adult 
                resident, while 363 exceeded $200 per adult in all the 
                governments analyzed;
                    (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 forfeitures 
                accounted for more than 20 percent of general fund 
                revenues recorded a median household 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, therefore 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 Mexico 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 costs may increase recidivism, 
        increase the potential of future jail or prison time, 
        exacerbate racial inequality, 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 justice system come from indigent 
        families. Imposing these fines and fees increases recidivism 
        and economic and emotional hardship on families.
    (b) Purpose.--The purpose of this Act is to create a grant program 
to provide technical assistance and training to State and local courts 
to--
            (1) improve the constitutional and equitable enforcement 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 research 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--
            (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 individual of--
                    ``(A) the precise offense with which the individual 
                is charged;
                    ``(B) the amount currently owed by the individual 
                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 litigant; 
                and
                    ``(I) whether the individual is required to appear 
                in court in person;
            ``(10) `fees'--
                    ``(A) means monetary fees that are imposed for the 
                costs of fine surcharges or court administrative fees; 
                and
                    ``(B) includes additional late fees, payment-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 constitutional 
        and equitable enforcement of fines and fees.''.
    (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 period 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 incorporate guidance that--
                    ``(A) courts should not incarcerate or issue an 
                arrest warrant for an individual for the nonpayment of 
                a fine or fee without first conducting an ability-to-
                pay determination and establishing that the failure to 
                pay was intentional;
                    ``(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 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 license 
                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 constitutionally adequate procedural 
                protections;
                    ``(G) courts should determine the ability to pay of 
                an individual at sentencing prior to determining 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 mandatory fines 
                and fees for misdemeanors and traffic-related and other 
                low-level offenses and infractions;
                    ``(J) courts should grant judges the authority and 
                discretion to modify sanctions after sentencing if the 
                circumstances of the defendant change, including that 
                the ability of the defendant to pay a fine or fee 
                becomes a hardship;
                    ``(K) courts should adopt education requirements 
                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 permissible activities of service;
                    ``(N) courts should not order or extend probation 
                or other court-ordered supervision exclusively for the 
                purpose of collecting fines, fees, or costs;
                    ``(O) courts should not charge interest on payment 
                plans entered into by a defendant, respondent, 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 Executive Director of the State 
        Justice Institute shall promulgate regulations to implement the 
        amendments 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--
            (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 require that 
                a recipient of a grant awarded for the purpose 
                described in paragraph (8) of section 206(a) shall 
                submit to the Institute an annual 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 alternatives 
                        considered for defendants who are unable to pay 
                        fees and fines;
                            ``(iv) the number of times a judicial 
                        hearing was contingent upon the prepayment of 
                        fines and fees, including hearing fees if the 
                        court deems the defendant ineligible for a fee 
                        waiver;
                            ``(v) the number of times constitutionally 
                        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 vehicles to 
                        get a driver's license reinstated or suspension 
                        lifted;
                            ``(viii) the number of times monetary bail 
                        practices were used that caused defendants to 
                        stay incarcerated due to their inability to pay 
                        a fine or fee;
                            ``(ix) the number of times voter 
                        disenfranchisement 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 
                        described in this subparagraph by race, gender, 
                        and disability status; and
                            ``(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 requirements under 
                subparagraph (A) that are not available to a recipient 
                of a grant.
                    ``(C) Report to congress.--The Institute shall 
                submit to the Bureau of Justice Statistics 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 Director of the State Justice Institute shall conduct 
        a study on the effectiveness such grants on the constitutional 
        enforcement of targeted fines and fees by State and local 
        courts.
            (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 determines 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)''.
                                 <all>