Support for Senate Bills 1089-1091 — Trial Court Indigency Proceedings

Date: September 22, 2026

To: Chair Chang and Members of the Senate Committee on Civil Rights, Judiciary and Public Safety

From: Rachel Richards, Fiscal Policy & Government Relations Director, Michigan League for Public Policy

Subject: Support for SB 1089-1091 — Trial Court Indigency Proceedings

The Michigan League for Public Policy is pleased to support Senate Bills 1089-1091, sponsored by Sens. Chang, Damoose and Cavanagh, which will implement important provisions of the Michigan Judicial Council’s Alternative Funding for Trial Courts Workgroup to help modernize and standardize funding for our trial court system. Importantly, these bills will implement a uniform approach to imposing fees and fines and making indigency determinations, ensuring persons mired in the court system won’t be saddled with court expenses that they’re unable to pay.

The League is a nonpartisan research and advocacy organization that promotes economic opportunity for all and analyzes the impact of public policy and budget decisions on the lives of Michiganders who have been systemically left out of prosperity. The League is also the state’s Kids Count organization, working as a part of a national effort to measure child well-being at the state and local levels and use that information to shape public policies and programs to improve the lives of children and their families.

In 2014, the Michigan Supreme Court ruled in People v. Cunningham that state law did not provide courts with the authority to impose costs upon criminal defendants to fund the day-to-day operation of the courts. While the Legislature passed short-term and temporary laws clarifying the ability of trial courts to levy fees and fines, which have been extended several times, Cunningham was an important decision that identified real and perceived conflicts of interest in our court funding system. Essentially, our system of funding courts through fees and fines creates an obligation to use the courts to generate revenue, rather than incentivizing judges to prioritize accountability, rehabilitation and justice. This system shifts the cost burden onto indigent defendants and people who are disproportionately affected by the criminal justice system and who have the least means to adequate counsel. 

In response to Cunningham, in 2017, the Michigan Legislature created the Trial Court Funding Commission to review Michigan’s trial court funding system and make recommendations. The Commission’s report, released in 2019, identified five recommendations to ensure stable funding for trial courts while removing trial court judges from a fundraising role for the operations of the courts. Importantly, one of their recommendations focused on establishing uniform assessments to determine whether a justice-involved individual has the ability to pay the court fees or fines.

Following the release of the report, the Michigan Judicial Council, led by the State Court Administrative Office (SCAO), was tasked with identifying the roadmap to implement the commission’s recommendations. The Alternative Funding for Trial Courts Workgroup was established in 2022 to advance court funding reforms, and the workgroup released its report in November 2025. Senate Bills 1089-1091 implement a small but incredibly important part of the workgroup’s recommendations — to ensure that justice-involved individuals can afford the associated fees and costs while maintaining requirements to pay restitution and fines when appropriate. Crucially, these bills would fill a gap in state law by requiring indigency determinations to be made before fines and fees are levied. This helps to ensure that individuals are held accountable for their actions while not saddling them with unfair court fees that they’re unable to pay.

Senate Bill 1089, sponsored by Sen. Chang, creates the uniform process and standards for assessing and determining a justice-involved individual’s indigency and would prohibit a trial court from imposing costs, fines or assessments on indigent defendants, except in cases of the payment of certain restitutions. The bill’s standards for determining indigency include common-sense definitions, such as enrollment in public assistance, income at or below the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development’s “very low income” level, or demonstrated financial hardship. The bills would also exempt youthful trainees (someone adjudicated under the Holmes Youthful Trainee Act), probationers, and incarcerated persons on work or school release who were already determined to be indigent from having to pay supervision or monitoring fees. Senate Bills 1090, sponsored by Sen. Damoose, and 1091, sponsored by Sen. Cavanagh, update provisions in the Revised Judicature Act and the Michigan Vehicle Code to align with the process and standards included in Senate Bill 1089 as well as prohibit the assessment of various costs or court fines for defendants that have been determined to be indigent.

As a data-backed organization, the definitions of indigency make sense. The definitions include a number of public assistance programs that are federal and state funded and are based on a percentage of the federal poverty guidelines or level (FPL), a standard set by the United States Department of Health and Human Services. These figures are updated annually based on inflation and vary based on the size of a family unit. Additionally, certain state programs have even more restricted or limited eligibility requirements than would have been allowed under federal guidelines. For example, the following table identifies the eligibility limits for a variety of the programs included in the definition of indigency.

Program	What the Program Provides	Eligibility Limit	Yearly Income	Monthly Income
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)	Provides individuals with monetary benefits to use at grocery stores, farmers markets and other facilities to purchase food	200% FPL	Family of 3: $51,640	Family of 3: $4,303
Family Independence Program	Provides families with monetary benefits to help support basic needs	Initial Eligibility: 42% FPL	Family of 3: $11,136	Family of 3: $928
Medicaid	Provides basic health insurance to individuals and families with low incomes	Healthy MI: 138% FPL	Family of 3: $35,632	Family of 3: $2,969
Woman, Infant and Children (WIC) Benefits	Provides healthy foods, personalized nutrition education, breastfeeding support and referrals to other services	Generally, receipt of Medicaid, SNAP or FIP or based on gross income	Family of 3: $50,542	Family of 3: $4,212

Arguments that this will cause a significant reduction in court revenues are unfounded. A study by the Brennan Center assessing court hearings from 2012 to 2018 showed that New Mexico and Texas spent over 41 cents for every dollar collected on associated court and jail costs alone. This represents an extremely inefficient return compared to the third of a penny per dollar the IRS spends on collecting tax revenue. In Michigan, collection of court costs remains low; the report from the Michigan Judicial Council workgroup, on which this legislation is based, found that district court costs collections were 47% between 2022 and 2023 and circuit courts only collected 12% of costs in the same period. In 2023, collection rates fell from 49% in year one to 4% in year three. In addition, year one collections of court costs have fallen over time. Essentially, even existing data show that using court costs as a way to generate revenue is ineffective because it has a poor return on investment.

Relying on fines and fees contributes to a poverty trap that disproportionately impacts the indigent populations with the least ability to incur the costs of funding the basic operations of Michigan’s criminal legal system. The 2024 Urban Institute Well-Being and Basic Needs Survey showed that 1 in 5 working-age adults lived in households that were charged a fine or fee during 2024. More than half of these costs were uncollected and the majority of households struggled to pay for basic necessities like food and housing. These same households face a cascading series of consequences that can prevent them from achieving financial security if they are unable to afford fines and fees, such as arrest and license forfeiture. 

Importantly, this will provide some uniformity across all courts. With a patchwork of court systems across the state, currently justice-involved individuals might be treated differently if they are charged and adjudicated in Kalamazoo, Oakland, Clare, or Delta counties. Standardizing indigent determinations can also improve the quality of those assessments, leading to a more fair and effective system. Research by the University of Michigan piloting an online system of determinations found that the standardizing intervention “improves accuracy and therefore the effectiveness of fines as punishments.”

At the same time, the legislation maintains that things like fines and restitution can still be assessed when deemed appropriate. It does not make indigent defendants financially immune from the consequences of an offense. This guarantees that legal defendants are held accountable for their actions. Furthermore, SB 1089-1091 help ensure that all similarly situated individuals are treated equitably regardless of their ZIP codes and take a step toward a more financially efficient and reliable funding system by reducing reliance on fines and fees.

We urge your support for this legislation.