Sluggish tax collections could set the stage nationally for new hikes in court costs, fines, and fees. That’s according to a recent article by The Pew Charitable Trusts, which observes that “many of the fiscal conditions that in recent decades led to this heavy reliance on fines and fees—federal retrenchment, slowing state tax revenue, and widespread property tax cuts—are reemerging.” In Alabama, that could mean people whose disputes only a court can resolve will face steeper filing fees and larger financial penalties.

PARCA has documented the role of court costs, fines, and fees for more than a decade. Here, we explain the landscape lawmakers must navigate if they wish to use court costs to increase public revenue.

Courts and Public Finance: A Primer

Alabama’s Unified Judicial System is funded by multiple mechanisms. Every year, lawmakers allocate money to the Administrative Office of Courts (AOC) through the budgetary process, primarily to cover the salaries of judges, clerks, and other court personnel. Courts supplement that with revenue of their own, which comes from civil fees and assessments against people convicted of crimes.

But funds also flow out of Alabama’s courts. In FY2025 alone, they disbursed $467.2 million to non-court entities. Most of that ($312.7 million, or 67%) went back into the pockets of Alabama residents and businesses as judgments, child support, alimony, and restitution. The second-largest tranche ($127.1 million, or 27%) went to non-court expenses like the state General Fund ($76.4 million), the Department of Corrections ($2 million), and even the American Village in Montevallo, a living-history and education center that educates people about American history ($329,146). Courts retained $24.4 million, or 6%, of their total revenue. Of the total revenue collected ($485.7 million), civil courts generated $373.1 million, and criminal courts generated $112.6 million.

Looking Ahead

Pew predicts that contracting tax revenue growth will prompt states to increase court costs, fines, and fees as supplemental forms of public revenue. Over the past 40 years, Alabama has done just that, adding a myriad of fees and costs at the state level and even more at the local level, often to fund special projects such as jails, treatment courts, or civic engagement initiatives.

However, an August 2026 report from Alabama’s Joint Interim Study Commission on Court Costs cautioned lawmakers against turning to courts to supplement anemic tax revenue. Steep civil filing fees and costs can effectively prevent low-income Alabama residents from using courts to resolve disputes, the report noted. The Commission estimates that criminal court costs, fines, and fees are collected at a rate of 15%-20% of the total assessed across all cases “because most people convicted of crimes have very limited ability to pay, especially while incarcerated.”

Policymakers’ views on the matter differ. In 2025, Rep. Chris Blackshear (R-Smiths Station) described trying to increase collections on criminal fines and fees as “low-hanging fruit,” while J. Langford Floyd, a former judge who consults for AOC, compared the same task to squeezing “blood out of a turnip.” Meanwhile, a 2025 PARCA analysis found that in Alabama, more revenue is collected when criminal costs, fines, and fees are assessed at lower amounts, while steeper assessments result in growing debt, not growing revenue. Our research also found that increasing local fees is associated with increasing local jail detention rates.

Faced with costs associated with new judgeships and case backlogs that date back to Covid-related shutdowns, Sen. Greg Albritton (R-Atmore) in early 2026 stressed the importance of finding stable funding to “keep the judiciary whole.” With court operations and access to justice in the balance, Alabama lawmakers, like their peers across the United States, will have to find stable ways to fund the system.