Many of Michigan’s local trial courts could see one of their funding avenues disappear as of May 1, due to a sunset clause in state law.
That clause is actually just a one-sentence provision added in 2014 that allows local courts to assess fines and fees on criminal defendants that are then used to cover court costs. Michigan has been struggling for a decade on how move away from this model, and come up with an alternative funding source for courts.
The need for change stems from the public perception that local courts and judges use defendant fees to fund themselves, according to Tom Boyd, Michigan’s State Court Administrator. Boyd said when he was chief judge of the 55th District Court in Ingham County, he was well-aware of that perception among the people the court served.
“They did not think I was about traffic safety. They did not think I didn't want them to drink and drive. They didn't think I didn't want them to beat their wife,” Boyd said. “They thought I wanted the money in their pocket. And that’s because we've allowed this broken funding system to last for too long.”
Boyd served on the Michigan Trial Court Funding Commission, which in 2019 released its recommendations on how best to wean the state’s trial courts off fee-based revenues and establish a permanent alternative funding source. While the implementation process was slowed by the pandemic and has since moved in fits and starts, state lawmakers have in the past extended the sunset clause, giving judges a huge amount of discretion in imposing “reasonable” fines and fees on criminal defendants.
The current law will sunset May 1, but the process of extending it has been held up by a feud in the state House. After a bill extending the sunset clause to 2026 was introduced, House Democrats tied it to a piece of legislation meant to advance the Commission’s recommendations. Under the bill, that task would fall to Boyd as State Court Administrator.
“We're not trying to say that people who committed a crime shouldn't pay. Absolutely not saying that,” Boyd said. “The question is, should it be the court that gets to keep the money once assessed?”
But House Republican leader Matt Hall (D-Richmond Township) objected to the tie-bar, and is blocking the bill from advancing for now.
“While a conversation around potential long-term solutions to trial court funding is important, House Republicans do not want [the sunset extension] held hostage for a separate, rushed bill written by another branch of government,” Hall said in a letter to State House Speaker Joe Tate (D-Detroit) and quoted by the Detroit News. “Any overhaul in funding needs careful review to avoid creating a destructive conversion of funding for our trial courts and local law enforcement.”
This roadblock led Boyd’s office to send a letter to all local trial courts in the state, warning them that the law allowing for judge-imposed fees that go toward court costs is set to expire at the end of the month. Boyd said those fees make up a small slice of the total state court budget, but that varies by court.
“It's the [city or township] district courts that are expected to bring in not only as much as they cost to exist, but maybe more so,” Boyd said.
“[And] that's the problem, the link between what [a court] brings in and what it costs to operate. If we can sever that link forever, setting the court free to operate and make independent decisions, then the coercive power of that cash won't affect the judges’ decisions.”
Boyd said that despite the Republican opposition, he expects the legislature to eventually pass the sunset extension, either late this month or in early May.
