News Post

By J. Langford Floyd, with contributions from Bennett Wright, Brenda Ganey, Chief Justice Sarah Stewart, and Nathan Wilson

Note: This article is a collaborative effort reflecting input and data from the Administrative Office of Courts, the Alabama Sentencing Commission, and circuit clerk offices. Statistical information was drawn from the AOC’s case management database; anecdotal insights are based on the professional experience of the contributors.

Introduction

“Court costs” is an oversimplistic and misunderstood term that is used to refer to many aspects of charges assessed on court cases in the Alabama court system. These funds are an essential component of the legal system in Alabama, as they help to partially (but far from totally) fund the operations of the court system, as well as provide funding for many agencies in Alabama. Over time, these costs have evolved due to changing legal, economic, and political factors. This article explores the history of court costs in Alabama, the factors influencing their development, and the status of court costs in the state.

Historical Background

Alabama’s court system, like that in many other states, has historically relied on court fees and fines as a source of funding the operations of the court system. Court costs are assessed on individuals and entities who engage with the court system in civil, criminal, domestic, and juvenile cases.

It is important to understand that court costs include many different charges depending on the type of case and location. Costs are assessed as initial filing fees in civil matters, including domestic relations, circuit and district court, and small claims actions. Court costs are also imposed at the end of court cases in criminal cases, traffic cases, and juvenile matters, both delinquency and dependency proceedings, as well as child support enforcement. Each of these types of cases has a separate and distinct fee schedule based on the type of case and the circuit or county.

In the early years, Alabama’s court costs were relatively minimal and largely aimed at sustaining the operations of the court. The term “court costs” is not limited to courtroom proceedings but also includes filing costs, fines, assessments, and fees for the administration of a court matter, whether the case ultimately goes to trial or not. Court costs originally covered basic administrative needs, such as clerical staff salaries and the maintenance of courtrooms, and were set at a fixed rate and were uniform across the local circuits.

In recent decades, Alabama’s growing population has increased the workload of courts, and the complexity of the court system has increased, resulting in the expansion of court costs and a lack of uniformity across the State.

A trend began to develop of adding additional fees for various aspects of court procedures, such as filing motions, subpoenas, and appeals. Additionally, specialized courts—such as family courts and juvenile courts—developed individual and unique cost structures. These additional costs and fees were added to help fund agencies involved in court proceedings, including probation services, testing, and treatment services, among others.

The Rise of Court Costs in the Modern Era

As the state grew in both population and economic complexity, the scope of the court system expanded as well. This growth came with increased demands on resources and the need for a more creative system of funding programs that the State could not maintain. Therefore, a significant shift occurred beginning in the 1980s and 1990s, when programs and agencies in Alabama began implementing new revenue-generating sources utilizing the court system. The trend was to rely more heavily on fees, fines, and surcharges to support not just court operations, but many other programs related, and sometimes unrelated, to the courts.

The Alabama legislature passed a series of reforms that substantially raised court costs and fees. These reforms aimed to cover the increasing costs of the court system, such as the expansion of services, the introduction of new technology, and the need to address the rising number of criminal cases. However, these costs and fees also addressed the increased funding needs for law enforcement and training, county services, court monitoring programs, etc. This marked a shift toward more complex, multi-tiered fee structures, including the introduction of costs and fees for local matters such as district attorney offices, sheriffs’ offices, county funding for jails, and other programs specific to counties.

Then, in the 1990s, the introduction of specific “user fees” for individuals who used certain court services was introduced. For example, individuals filing civil lawsuits requesting jury trials, the filing of certain dispositive motions, and other fees were added to the court costs assessed. Many of the fees were also in the form of fines and assessments on convicted criminal defendants based on the nature of the charge. For example, a DUI conviction now includes additional “assessments” for head injury and criminal history fees, as well as higher fines for first, second, third, and fourth offenses. Many drug-related cases include substantial fines. A conviction for possession of a controlled substance includes an additional fine in the amount of sixty dollars ($60), while a conviction of trafficking carries an additional fine of six hundred dollars ($600). A felony conviction for Unlawful Possession of Marijuana includes a fine in the amount of up to $15,000. These fines or fees were also increasingly used to fund court-related programs, such as drug treatment courts, diversion programs, probation services, and to fund representation of indigent criminal defendants. As well-intentioned as these additional assessments appeared on the surface, the recognition of the people or entities responsible for paying these additional fees and assessments was overlooked. As court costs rose, so too did the financial burden on those who found themselves involved in legal proceedings. Many individuals, especially those facing criminal charges, struggled to pay these fees. While civil filings are collected at nearly 100%, criminal case collections are substantially lower. The collection rate on criminal cases is approximately 15-20%. The answer of just “have the user pay” – i.e., the criminal defendant – is not always that easy. Most criminal defendants are from lower socioeconomic levels in society. Therefore, the ability of these defendants to pay court costs is simply not a reality. Additionally, if the defendant is also sentenced to incarceration, he/she no longer has a job to provide for the payments. So, the fines, fees, and assessments remain unpaid until released, which could be years later. After release, the defendant must then find a job with a salary substantial enough to repay pending court costs. Therefore, funding the system for the criminal defendant is not a viable and sustainable option.

The Impact of Court Costs on Access to Justice

The rise in court costs in Alabama has led to significant concerns regarding access to justice, particularly for low-income individuals. The criminal defendant, if indigent, receives some assistance. First, the court cost is not assessed unless convicted. Additionally, many times he/she receives a court-appointed lawyer, paid for by the State.

However, for the civil litigant, this issue has led to the growing recognition that excessive court costs can create a barrier to justice.

In the 2000s, advocacy groups began to push for reforms that would alleviate the financial burden on low-income residents of Alabama. These reforms centered on ensuring that court costs did not infringe upon an individual’s right to fair and equal treatment under the law. In 2013, the Alabama Access to Justice Commission was formed to focus on improving access to legal services for low-income residents. One of the key areas of focus was addressing the fairness of court costs and related fees. This issue continues to remain an impediment today for those low-income individuals faced with the requirement to pay fees before a lawsuit is filed.

Current Status of Court Costs in Alabama

The recent trend of raising fines and fees to increase state and local funding and revenues has led to concerns that court costs have become more of a revenue-generating tool rather than a means to fairly fund the administration of justice. This growing concern has led to discussions about a more balanced approach to funding the court system. The Legislature, in the 2025 session, passed a Joint Resolution establishing the Joint Interim Study Commission on Court Costs, noting that court costs are inconsistent throughout the state, and a simple, standardized, and transparent set of court costs would benefit the state and the populace.[1] The purpose of this commission, made up of many stakeholders, including legislators, lawyers, judges, circuit clerks, district attorneys, and county representatives, is to study the complexity of court costs and make recommendations establishing increased uniformity throughout the state.

Today, Alabama’s court costs system remains multi-faceted, with a wide array of fees applied, depending on the type of case, the circumstances of the case, and the  circuit in which the case resides. Because the overall cost structure is determined by both statewide and local statutes, fees can vary significantly, depending on the jurisdiction.

Types of Court Costs

Filing Fees: In civil cases, individuals must pay a fee to initiate a lawsuit. This fee is based on the nature of the case and can range from a few dollars to several hundred dollars, depending on the complexity of the matter. Additional charges or fees may apply depending on whether the case is in district or circuit court, the number of defendants, service of process fees, if a jury trial is requested and what motions are filed in the case.

Criminal Court Costs: In criminal cases, court costs are assessed to the defendant, if convicted. These fees are generally more expensive than civil fees and include charges for the court services, a bail bond fee, a solicitor fee, probation fees, the costs of the prosecution, subpoenas issued, mandatory fines, and many times collection fees are added. Depending on the severity of the crime, these fees can quickly become significant. Mandated fines and court ordered restitution may also be assessed on the defendant.

Jury Fees: Individuals requesting a jury trial may also be required to pay a jury fee upon initiating the case. Upon completion, the costs of the jury may be assessed against the losing party to cover the per diem costs of the jurors and any mileage paid.

Special charges/fees/assessments: Certain legal actions, mostly in criminal cases, are subject to additional charges, such as fees for drug testing, community supervision or pre-trial intervention monitoring. These additional costs often fund specific programs, such as treatment or victims’ services.

The above paragraphs contain a very brief overview of court costs, as a  discussion of the entire myriads of costs, fines, fees and assessments would require an additional article to adequately discuss the subject.

Recent Reforms and Challenges

In recent years, the Alabama court system has taken steps to address the negative impact that high court costs can have on low-income individuals. One of the key reforms in this area was the decision to allow individuals to apply for waivers or reductions of certain court fees if an inability to pay can be proven. However, critics argue that the system is still too punitive, especially for those who find themselves unable to afford both legal representation and the associated fees. Conversely, if those fees are waived,  a heavier burden will be placed on similar  cases and parties as  the cost of the waived cases must be absorbed by those other cases. This is a topic hopefully to be addressed by the Study Commission.

An additional reform under consideration is to address the multiple  requests for local assessments presented to the legislature each session. To assist with local funding shortages, local legislative delegations frequently propose adding an assessment  to their local circuit court costs. On the surface this would seem to be harmless. as those fees are only assessed and collected within that local jurisdiction. However, these fees vary in different amounts from $10 to  $100 per case, depending on the local request. This leads to a disparity as to the “court costs” charged in similar cases, depending on the circuit in which the case is filed. For example, a divorce in one circuit may cost  $220, but in another circuit,  may be as much as $324, depending on the local assessments. The rationale, reasonable in theory, is that the costs are being placed on those that use the system rather than on the entire taxpayer base of the state. Unfortunately, in practice, sometimes it is the civil court that is paying additional fees to support the district attorney’s office or the local county for the maintenance of the jail. In a perfect world, it would be the criminal case that would provide that funding, but as stated earlier it is the criminal defendant that is at the lowest end of the economic spectrum and therefore the least likely to have the ability to pay.

Additionally,  the more economically prosperous areas of the state reap a higher benefit from court costs generally as there is a higher likelihood of collectability  when compared to those regions of the state which contain lower economic areas. Standardizing the basic court costs across the state might benefit all.

Conclusion

The history of court costs in Alabama reflects broader trends in the state’s legal and economic development. From humble beginnings, court costs have grown to become a significant factor in the functioning of the state’s financial outlook. While these costs help fund the judicial system, they also present ongoing challenges, particularly for low-income residents. As Alabama continues to grapple with the balance between funding the court system and ensuring fair access to justice, court cost reforms will likely continue to be an area of focus for lawmakers, legal professionals, and advocacy groups alike.

[1]House Joint Resolution 163, Alabama Legislature (2025 Reg. Sess.), establishing the Joint Interim Study Commission on Court Costs. Sponsored by Rep. Jim Hill.