A new judicial task force report calls for an overhaul in how Michigan’s local courts are funded.

The report says the local jurisdictions rely too much on fines and fees to fund their operations. The report says that is not only unfair, it undermines faith that courts and judges are more interested in dispensing justice than collecting money.

Court costs and challenges

State Court Administrator Tom Boyd says it’s no secret that confidence in policing and the fairness of courts is under challenge. “It isn’t that folks that come before the courts aren’t paying their fair share, it’s that they’re paying way more than their fair share. And, so, the report tries to get at a mechanism to ensure that people pay the right amount and that the people that assess that revenue aren’t motivated by profit.”

Bonsitu Kitaba-Gaviglio is the acting legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan. She says Michigan’s court problematic funding system could be vulnerable open to a constitutional challenge. “The obligation to tax, assess, to fund the operation of the government is a responsibility of the Legislature, not the judiciary, and so that’s a constitutional concern, and second, it raises serious due process concerns.”

She says people can’t always expect fair treatment when judges have a vested financial interest in guilty verdicts and imposing fines and fees.

Tom Boyd, the state court administrator, says in some jurisdictions, courts are so flush with revenue it helps fund other parts of local government. Meanwhile, in other places courts barely break even. “I challenge you to go hang around district courts where you live today and stop people and ask them what they think the government wants from them and the overwhelming answer is going to be money.”

One potential solution

One of the recommendations is to take all the fines, fees and costs collected by all the courts and put it all into one pot to be shared statewide. The state would also develop a plan to prioritize based on the needs of local court systems, including how busy they are and the types and complexity of the cases.

Monroe County Administrator Michael Bosanac was part of the task force. He says all that money from fines, fees and costs would go into a state-managed fund, and could only be spent on local courts, and not diverted for other purposes.

“We’re not saying that those functions are not important. They’re really important. We’re just simply saying that in this new model that they should not be funded from court resources and revenue. They should be funding those from some other source of money.”

There’s hope these recommendations will give the Legislature a framework to comply with a court decision.

An on-going effort

The Michigan Supreme Court ruled nearly a dozen years ago that local courts cannot arbitrarily impose court costs on defendants to fund their operations. The Legislature has voted itself multiple extensions since then and there is bipartisan interest in finalizing a solution.

”It’s a super-important issue that we, I’m hoping that the Legislature can finally get resolved,” says State Senator Stephanie Chang. She’s a Democrat who chairs the Senate Civil Rights, Judiciary and Public Safety Committee.

Chang says a resolution is overdue to resolve the conflict between the fair administration of justice and leaning on defendants to provide a major source of funding. “So how can we make sure that we have a stable funding system that funds our trial courts in a way that gets rid of that conflict?”

It is a big and complex task, but Chang says she is optimistic that even in a divided political environment, the Legislature can reach a bipartisan solution by the end of next year.

The attorneys representing young people in Detroit’s courts say their pay hasn’t kept pace with their purpose.

They haven’t received a raise in more than three decades.

Wayne County juvenile attorneys handle neglect and delinquency cases. They represent kids and families in crisis, but unlike public defenders, they are independent contractors who receive a set fee per hearing and no benefits.

Juvenile attorney Marc Shreeman says the pay is about $500 for a preliminary hearing and pretrial appearance, roughly half of what similar attorneys earn in nearby Oakland County. 

Shreeman says low pay, coupled with rising caseloads, is having an impact. In 2019, roughly 120 attorneys were taking juvenile cases in Wayne County; now, there are fewer than 60. 

The dwindling number of juvenile attorneys and stagnant pay come as Detroit faces a rise in youth violence compared with last year, and a higher number of teens being caught with firearms. City officials have responded by strengthening curfew enforcement and raising fines for parents of minors found out after hours. 

WDET contacted multiple county officials for comment.

The Wayne County Executive’s Office did not respond.

A representative for the Wayne County Court Administration, which distributes pay to juvenile attorneys, said in an earlier statement that the department is “working closely with Wayne County to address potential funding options” and that staff have met with the Ways and Means Committee to discuss the issue.

WDET also contacted Commissioner Jonathan Kinloch, who chairs that committee, but did not receive a response.

Juvenile attorney Shreeman joined Robyn Vincent on The Metro to discuss the work of public defenders in a time when young people are facing more danger.

Listen to The Metro weekdays from 10 a.m. to noon ET on 101.9 FM and streaming on demand.

Subscribe to The Metro on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, NPR.org or wherever you get your podcasts.

More stories from The Metro

CONCORD, N.H. (AP) — A federal judge in New Hampshire issued a ruling Thursday prohibiting President Donald Trump’s executive order ending birthright citizenship from taking effect anywhere in the U.S.

Judge Joseph LaPlante issued a preliminary injunction blocking Trump’s order and certified a class action lawsuit including all children who will be affected. The order, which followed an hour-long hearing, included a seven-day stay to allow for appeal.

The judge’s decision puts the birthright citizenship issue on a fast track to return to the Supreme Court. The justices could be asked to rule whether the order complies with their decision last month that limited judges’ authority to issue nationwide injunctions.

The class is slightly narrower than that sought by the plaintiffs, who wanted to include parents, but attorneys said that wouldn’t make a material difference.

“This is going to protect every single child around the country from this lawless, unconstitutional and cruel executive order,” said Cody Wofsy, an attorney for the plaintiffs.

The lawsuit was filed on behalf of a pregnant woman, two parents and their infants. It’s among numerous cases challenging Trump’s January order denying citizenship to those born to parents living in the U.S. illegally or temporarily. The plaintiffs are represented by the American Civil Liberties Union and others.

At issue is the Constitution’s 14th Amendment, which states: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.” The Trump administration says the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” means the U.S. can deny citizenship to babies born to women in the country illegally, ending what has been seen as an intrinsic part of U.S. law for more than a century.

“Prior misimpressions of the citizenship clause have created a perverse incentive for illegal immigration that has negatively impacted this country’s sovereignty, national security, and economic stability,” government lawyers wrote in the New Hampshire case.

LaPlante, who had issued a narrow injunction in a similar case, said while he didn’t consider the government’s arguments frivolous, he found them unpersuasive. He said his decision to issue an injunction was “not a close call” and that deprivation of U.S. citizenship clearly amounted to irreparable harm.

In a Washington state case before the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, the judges have asked the parties to write briefs explaining the effect of the Supreme Court’s ruling. Washington and the other states in that lawsuit have asked the appeals court to return the case to the lower court judge.

As in New Hampshire, a plaintiff in Maryland seeks to organize a class-action lawsuit that includes every person who would be affected by the order. The judge set a Wednesday deadline for written legal arguments as she considers the request for another nationwide injunction from CASA, a nonprofit immigrant rights organization.

Ama Frimpong, legal director at CASA, said the group has been stressing to its members and clients that it is not time to panic.

“No one has to move states right this instant,” she said. “There’s different avenues through which we are all fighting, again, to make sure that this executive order never actually sees the light of day.”

The New Hampshire plaintiffs, referred to only by pseudonyms, include a woman from Honduras who has a pending asylum application and is due to give birth to her fourth child in October. She told the court the family came to the U.S. after being targeted by gangs.

“I do not want my child to live in fear and hiding. I do not want my child to be a target for immigration enforcement,” she wrote. “I fear our family could be at risk of separation.”

Another plaintiff, a man from Brazil, has lived with his wife in Florida for five years. Their first child was born in March, and they are in the process of applying for lawful permanent status based on family ties — his wife’s father is a U.S. citizen.

“My baby has the right to citizenship and a future in the United States,” he wrote.

Reporting by Holly Ramer and Mike Catalini, Associated Press.