Federal Court Says Taking People's Drivers Licenses Away For Failure To Pay Court Fees Is Unconstitutional

from the towards-a-slightly-less-vicious-cycle dept

Good news out of Tennessee, via Christian Farias: a federal court has struck down the state's modern debtor's prison system.

In Tennessee, if you fail to pay court fines and other fees associated with an arrest or imprisonment for more than a year, your driver's license is revoked. While it may not be as punitive as rounding up debtors and locking them up again (which obviously severely restricts their ability to pay off their debt), it basically serves the same purpose. Someone without a valid driver's license will find their ability to earn income restricted. Driving to and from work with a revoked license just raises the risk of being fined or arrested, placing residents even further away from settling their debts with the government.

The lawsuit was brought by two men who've been unable to make regular payments and have been placed even further behind by having their licenses taken away. Their struggles are briefly described in the court decision [PDF]:

In short, Thomas and Hixson both live in severe poverty and both owe court debt related to past criminal convictions. Thomas is totally and permanently disabled. Hixson has spent time in recent years living in a homeless shelter after a period of incarceration. Each man struggles to afford the basic necessities of life and is unable to pay the court debt assessed against him. Because they failed to pay their court debt for over a year, Thomas and Hixson have both had their driver’s licenses revoked by TDSHS [Tennessee Dept. of Safety and Homeland Security].

The state believes this is an effective deterrent and one of the only ways to guarantee repayment of fines. In fact, a spokesperson for TDSHS has already stated that the ruling is "disappointing" and the agency is reviewing its "legal options." This suggests TDSHS thinks license revocation works, rather than just disproportionately punishes the poorest residents of the state. The district court, however, disagrees with this assessment.

A scheme that revoked the driver’s licenses of non-indigent court debtors after one year of nonpayment would pass rational basis review, because the threat of revocation would plausibly serve as a method for coercing those people into paying their debts. (First Memorandum at 36–37.) Under the Griffin line of cases, however, the court must specifically consider whether the scheme’s lack of an indigence exception is itself rational. Revocation would not be an effective mechanism for coercing payment from a truly indigent debtor, because no person can be threatened or coerced into paying money that he does not have and cannot get. (Id. at 37.) The numbers bear that ineffectiveness out. From July 1, 2012, to June 1, 2016, TDSHS revoked 146,211 driver’s licenses for failure to pay fines, costs and/or litigation taxes; only 10,750 of those people—about 7%—had their licenses reinstated. (Docket No. 64 ¶¶ 107–08.) If Tennessee’s revocation law were capable of coercing people into paying their debts in order to get their licenses back, it would be doing so. The overwhelming majority of the time, it is not.

This is part of the court's analysis of the law and its legality. As precedent holds, a law that affirmatively punishes poor people for being poor is unconstitutional, as it violates both Due Process and Equal Protection principles. Tennessee's law fits the criteria.

Under a long and well-established line of Supreme Court precedents, a statute that penalizes or withholds relief from a defendant in a criminal case, based solely on his nonpayment of a particular sum of money and without providing for an exception if he is willing but unable to pay, is the constitutional equivalent of a statute that specifically imposes a harsher sanction on indigent defendants than on non-indigent defendants.

The court's lengthy examination of the law is worth reading -- especially by federal judges in other states with laws like these. But this is the upshot: the law makes bad situations worse, driving poor people further into poverty. In addition, the state's records show it is completely ineffective on its own terms -- either as a deterrent against non-payment or an efficient way to collect on debts owed.

Ultimately, the court need not determine if the driver’s license revocation law would fail rational basis review based on its sheer ineffectiveness alone, because, as applied to indigent drivers, the law is not merely ineffective; it is powerfully counterproductive. If a person has no resources to pay a debt, he cannot be threatened or cajoled into paying it; he may, however, become able to pay it in the future. But taking his driver’s license away sabotages that prospect.

[...]

In short, losing one’s driver’s license simultaneously makes the burdens of life more expensive and renders the prospect of amassing the resources needed to overcome those burdens more remote.

The court then goes on to note the cycle created by this revocation -- which can lead to additional arrests and/or fines -- just digs a deeper hole for the state. It creates additional debts that have almost zero chance of being repaid. It's nothing more than doubling down on what already isn't working.

Fortunately, there are some on the law enforcement side welcoming this ruling.

Shelby County District Attorney General Amy Weirich praised the decision.

“This ruling will give relief to those drivers whose licenses are revoked only because they lack the financial resources to pay their fines and court costs," Weirich said in a statement. "Our hope is that this will be a positive step toward rehabilitation since offenders getting their driving privileges restored will make employment more feasible. Also, it will reduce our daily caseload and allow us to focus even more on violent crimes and property crimes.”   

The attorneys for the pair of residents -- Claudia Wilner and Josh Spickler -- are hoping this ruling results in another favorable ruling in the near future. The pair is also suing on behalf of the 250,000 state residents who've had their licenses revoked for not paying traffic tickets. As it stands now, the state has sixty days to come up with a plan for reinstating all revoked licenses affected by this ruling and submit it to the court for approval. Reinstatement may be stayed during the inevitable appeal, but for now, the state cannot continue to revoke licenses when someone has shown an inability to pay.

It's a big decision, even if its jurisdictional reach is limited to the state of Tennessee. If this is upheld on appeal, it will cover the four states that make up the Sixth District. Although this has been slightly altered in recent years, Ohio still engages in this practice. In Michigan, a state appeals court judge blocked a similar law late last year. (That decision is currently being appealed.) Kentucky is the only state in the district without a law like this on the books, putting it a step ahead of its district competition.


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  1. identicon
    bob, 11 Jul 2018 @ 2:01pm

    Yay for math.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  2. icon
    Bamboo Harvester (profile), 11 Jul 2018 @ 2:03pm

    Not clear on how far-reaching

    "The pair is also suing on behalf of the 250,000 state residents who've had their licenses revoked for not paying traffic tickets."

    That's NOT court costs.

    Losing your driver's license for too many tickets or not paying tickets has always been the norm.

    The last paragraph of the article seems to be saying that the "indigent" shouldn't have to pay fines or fees for traffic infractions.

    Frankly, if they can't afford to pay traffic tickets, how are they paying to own, register, insure, and operate a car?

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  3. identicon
    Peter, 11 Jul 2018 @ 2:10pm

    The next logical step

    "and if that does not get them to pay, we will take away their right to Vote." <Thumps table>

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  4. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 11 Jul 2018 @ 2:10pm

    Re: Not clear on how far-reaching

    When you need a car for a job, you pay for that before you pay any tickets or fines, as otherwise you pay a bit of that debt and lose your job, and then there is little hope of clearing the debt.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  5. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 11 Jul 2018 @ 2:12pm

    Re: Not clear on how far-reaching

    … has always been the norm.

    Yes. The system, especially in the American South, has always delighted in finding people who're hanging onto the edge of a financial cliff — and stomping on their fingertips. Repeatedly. Hard stomps. Finger-crushing stomps. To make 'em fall off.

     

    I suspect the system delights in that mostly out of pure meanness.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  6. icon
    Stephen T. Stone (profile), 11 Jul 2018 @ 2:22pm

    Re: The next logical step

    As if lawmakers need an excuse to do that.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  7. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 11 Jul 2018 @ 2:29pm

    Re: The next logical step

    Why bother? If they're that poor, there's no way they could make a "campaign contribution", so I doubt the legislators care what they think.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  8. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 11 Jul 2018 @ 2:47pm

    The unspoken intent with this is that the criminalized poor become homeless and feel unwelcome and leave the good god-fearing Murican communities in search of places that don't treat them like human garbage. This is a feature, not a bug.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  9. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 11 Jul 2018 @ 3:16pm

    > [Tennessee Dept. of Safety and Homeland Security]

    Who named that department? Might as well just call it "Goon Squad".

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  10. icon
    Cdaragorn (profile), 11 Jul 2018 @ 3:16pm

    Re: Not clear on how far-reaching

    "That's NOT court costs."

    So what? Nothing in the article or the judges ruling ever says this idea only applies to court costs. They're talking about any fees levied by the government against a citizen for any reason.

    The last paragraph also doesn't say anything about the "indigent" or whether they should have to pay fines or fees. I'm not sure what paragraph you might actually be referring to, but the whole point of this ruling was that taking away their privilege to drive is not an effective or reasonable punishment for not paying a government fee. That doesn't mean some punishment can't be used. Only that this one isn't reasonable because it unjustly punishes poorer people over wealthier ones.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  11. icon
    Bamboo Harvester (profile), 11 Jul 2018 @ 3:17pm

    Re: Re: Not clear on how far-reaching

    The article starts off that DL's are being revoked for non-payment of COURT COSTS - much like NY and other states do for non-payment of Child Support.

    Then, at the very end, it says for TRAFFIC TICKETS.

    Operation of a motor vehicle on public roads requires a Driver's License, with the understanding that if you accrue too many tickets, you will lose that privilege.

    So only people with jobs should follow the law? If you're poor you can do 80 in a 20mph zone past a school?

    Here in NY, the fines and jail time for unregistered or uninsured motor vehicles are far more severe than Unlicensed Operation (no license).

    This really smells like the two lawyers with that "client pool" of a quarter million people are out for cash and nothing more.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  12. icon
    Bamboo Harvester (profile), 11 Jul 2018 @ 3:25pm

    Re: Re: Not clear on how far-reaching

    My bad, second to the last paragraph.

    If you're unable to pay your traffic tickets, the State can't revoke your Driver's License.

    What's the point of traffic laws ANY laws, that have no penalty for breaking them?

    I don't agree with suspending or revoking DL's for NON-vehicle related things, such as non-payment of child support, but for TRAFFIC infractions? YES. Get them OFF the roads.

    What I find most annoying about this piece is the way it starts off reasonably, talking about court costs. Then in the second to last paragraph we find it's (apparently) a husband and wife team of lawyers looking to cash in on a quarter million unpaid traffic tickets.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  13. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 11 Jul 2018 @ 3:37pm

    For the Volunteer state Tennessee sure does like taking things.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  14. icon
    JoeCool (profile), 11 Jul 2018 @ 3:40pm

    Re: Re: Re: Not clear on how far-reaching

    You seem to think that the penalty for multiple tickets is merely another fine. That it not the case. Penalties go up with multiple infractions, and not just increasing fines. You can get jail time with enough infractions that are serious enough. So no, this isn't a blanket "get-out-jail-free" card for the streets. It simply means that ONE of the possible punishments for simply failing to pay a fine cannot be taking away the license.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  15. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 11 Jul 2018 @ 3:41pm

    Re: Re: Re: Not clear on how far-reaching

    Here in NY…

    Look at those New Yorkers. Always got to be proving they're up to being meaner and stupider than anyone else.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  16. icon
    JoeCool (profile), 11 Jul 2018 @ 3:45pm

    Re: Re: The next logical step

    BUt it puts them in a prime position to influence their vote. More than one election was LITERALLY bought by candidates paying the homeless to vote for them.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  17. identicon
    Sharur, 11 Jul 2018 @ 3:48pm

    Re: Re: Re: Not clear on how far-reaching

    (Note that the following is not a lawyer joke)

    They are lawyers, in the United States system, which is adversarial. In the same way as they challenged the forfeiture of driving licenses for failure to pay court costs, they are challenging the validity of forfeiture for failure to pay tickets. That is what a good lawyer, that is to say and advocate, does.

    Normally/theoretically, this shouldn't be done in the courts, but in the legislature. Unfortunately, my faith in most legislatures has been shaken by the last decade or so of, in my opinion, poor decisions on most topics that I care about and directly impact me.

    I should note that, where I live at least, if you truly can't pay you can get court fees and even ticket payments either suspended, lowered or waived. On the other hand, many people seem to view many things that I have chosen to have as "things I cannot live without".

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  18. icon
    Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 11 Jul 2018 @ 3:48pm

    Re: Re: Re: Not clear on how far-reaching

    Well there seems to be some contradiction in the article, though not directly. At one place they say:

    "From July 1, 2012, to June 1, 2016, TDSHS revoked 146,211 driver’s licenses for failure to pay fines, costs and/or litigation taxes"

    Then at the paragraph you mention:

    "The pair is also suing on behalf of the 250,000 state residents who've had their licenses revoked for not paying traffic tickets."

    If they are separate numbers, then there are 396211 people that have had their licenses revoked and one wonders why those money grubbing attorneys were missing the extra income. Or, the second number included the first number and was mischaracterized in the description of the offences being represented. Maybe just over simplified.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  19. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 11 Jul 2018 @ 5:14pm

    Re: Re: Re: The next logical step

    Got any proof of that?

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  20. icon
    Gary (profile), 11 Jul 2018 @ 6:10pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Not clear on how far-reaching

    Not necessarily a contradiction. The first quote was narrowly confined to a four year period. Including people form outside that range could easily account for that difference even without adjusting the scope any other way.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  21. icon
    JoeCool (profile), 11 Jul 2018 @ 6:40pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: The next logical step

    Just google "paying homeless to vote" and you'll get a lot of links. Many are shit, but some are good, covering incidents all over the country where everything from cigarettes to cash have been given to the homeless, along with rides to the polling places.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  22. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 11 Jul 2018 @ 6:55pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The next logical step

    Just Giving a ride is not a payment. Doing it with the express bargain of them voting for your candidate is.

    If there are a few good ones point them out. I'm sure I could Google anything and find a result I agree with.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  23. identicon
    well-gee..., 11 Jul 2018 @ 10:55pm

    does this apply to Passports?

    I wonder if this logic could be applied to Passport revocation as well. For us Americans who live overseas, it is exceedingly complex to comply with US tax laws and the local tax laws of the country where we reside - NOTE that we are the only country, except for Eritrea, that taxes our citizens no matter where they live. If you get into a dispute with the IRS, they can revoke your passport - the results of which are far more dire than losing your drivers license.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  24. icon
    R.H. (profile), 11 Jul 2018 @ 11:12pm

    Re: does this apply to Passports?

    I've never quite understood that. You aren't living in the US, so you aren't using the vast majority of the services provided by American citizenship but our government still taxes you? How does that make sense? I hope that similar to deductions of state income tax, you can deduct whatever you pay in taxes to your country of residence.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  25. icon
    Clumsy Grace (profile), 12 Jul 2018 @ 2:35am

    Re: Not clear on how far-reaching

    Nobody said anything about owning, registering or insuring a car. People who do not own cars are still allowed to get driver's licenses. That affords them the legal ability to drive other cars that do not belong to them.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  26. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 12 Jul 2018 @ 5:11am

    "Just" punishing

    This suggests TDSHS thinks license revocation works, rather than just disproportionately punishes the poorest residents of the state.

    Can't it be both?

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  27. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 12 Jul 2018 @ 5:12am

    "Just" punishing

    This suggests TDSHS thinks license revocation works, rather than just disproportionately punishes the poorest residents of the state.

    Can't it be both? The quoted statistic shows it works 7% of the time. If you don't care about the poor, why wouldn't you want an extra 7% of people to pay?

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  28. icon
    DannyB (profile), 12 Jul 2018 @ 6:05am

    It makes sense

    If people can't pay their court fines, the last thing you would want to do is let them keep their driver license so that they can hold a steady job and pay their court fines.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  29. identicon
    jilocasin, 12 Jul 2018 @ 6:11am

    Maine just did this.

    In Maine they just passed a law, over the Governors veto, to repeal a similar scheme there.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  30. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 12 Jul 2018 @ 8:00am

    >This suggests TDSHS thinks license revocation works, rather than just disproportionately punishes the poorest residents of the state.

    Rather than? Sounds to me like that's exactly how the sleazebags intended it.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  31. identicon
    I.T. Guy, 12 Jul 2018 @ 8:11am

    I've been driving for 30 years without a license. Lost it shortly after I got it and due to the shitty system and a string of unfortunate circumstances will be eligible for it again in 8 months.

    Transportation should be a right not a privilege.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  32. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 12 Jul 2018 @ 12:49pm

    Re: Re: Re: Not clear on how far-reaching

    Okay - Losing driver's license b/c you have too many traffic tickets/infractions.

    Not Okay - Losing driver's license b/c you cannot pay the fines for those tickets.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  33. identicon
    John Smith, 12 Jul 2018 @ 7:12pm

    Wait until homeless people start defecating anywhere they see fit, since they don't have access to bathrooms, have to go, and to ticket them would punish them for being poor.

    The implications for the homeless are incredible here. Look for holy heck to break loose.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  34. identicon
    Wendy Cockcroft, 13 Jul 2018 @ 5:44am

    Re: Re: Re: Not clear on how far-reaching

    @Bamboo Harvester, has it not occurred to you that garnishing wages, etc., is the most effective way to recover monies owed? If it's taken at source, it can't be held back.

    Everybody else, the indigent need not be made to suffer overmuch as the money can be recovered in small amounts stretched over a long period of time.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  35. identicon
    Wendy Cockcroft, 13 Jul 2018 @ 5:45am

    Re:

    Which would be easier if they had the money for a ticket to Somewhere Else.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  36. identicon
    Wendy Cockcroft, 13 Jul 2018 @ 5:51am

    Re:

    I.T. Guy, this is one of those times I'm not giving you an Insightful vote. You see, I used to work for the DVLA and for an insurance company. I assure you that the purpose of driving licences, at least in the UK, is to ensure that drivers are fit to drive on our roads and motorways.

    People who are not get points on their licences, which ultimately get revoked if the driver doesn't mend his or her ways.

    The last thing anyone wants is drivers who can't demonstrate to the satisfaction of a professional authority that they know the rules of the road and can drive safely and competently driving about causing accidents.

    I actually know someone who bought a car off a friend and was driving around without either a licence or insurance. When she crashed the car she abandoned it where it was and since she wasn't known to the police she got clean away with it. How many hit-and-runs are down to unlicenced or uninsured drivers fearing the consequences of their actions? Sorry mate, I disagree.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  37. identicon
    Wendy Cockcroft, 13 Jul 2018 @ 5:53am

    Re:

    That happens now. Shouldn't we be building more homeless shelters and working to rehabilitate these people back into society so they stop being a nuisance — even if it's by default and they can't help it?

    It would actually be cheaper than criminalising and mistreating them.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  38. icon
    Toom1275 (profile), 13 Jul 2018 @ 7:25am

    Luckily, Tennessee voters too indigent to afford a state-issued ID are exempted from the state's ID requirement for voting.

    Else some of these people would also have had their ability to vote stripped.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  39. identicon
    John Smith, 14 Jul 2018 @ 2:29am

    Re: Re:

    No one cares if the government wastes $1 million as long as not even $100 of that money goes to some "freeloader."

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  40. identicon
    John Smith, 14 Jul 2018 @ 2:33am

    Re: Re:

    It actually costs NOTHING to house the homeless. Many renters pay $700+ a month for crappy places because they can't get mortgages that would cost them only $350 a month or whatever.

    The problem is that we need to scare people into spending the prime of their lives working, which is also why we frighten people regularly about saving enough for retirement, as if we would ever discard the elderly like they did to Boxer in Animal Farm.

    Drinking water is socialist. At the least, we need a Department of Drinking Water to ensure that those who can afford to pay for their own water don't mooch off the government!

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  41. icon
    nasch (profile), 14 Jul 2018 @ 4:22pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The next logical step

    There is one result describing a case where some homeless people were given cigarettes, but it was not clear if they were in exchange for a particular vote. No charges were filed. The rest of the results I saw were just about issues around the homeless and voting, not vote buying.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  42. icon
    nasch (profile), 14 Jul 2018 @ 4:26pm

    Re:

    Freedom of movement is a right. You can walk, ride a bike, take a taxi or Uber, get a ride from a friend, or take public transit. The government cannot stop you from doing any of these things. To operate a motor vehicle on public roads yourself is something you must demonstrate qualifications for, and can be denied to you.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  43. icon
    nasch (profile), 14 Jul 2018 @ 4:27pm

    Re: Re:

    It's cheaper to just give the homeless apartments for free than to spend public resources on dealing with them as homeless people.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  44. identicon
    Wendy Cockcroft, 16 Jul 2018 @ 2:29am

    Re: Re:

    ^This.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  45. identicon
    Wendy Cockcroft, 16 Jul 2018 @ 2:32am

    Re: Re: Re:

    Indeed. We need to get out of the punishment mentality and start looking at homelessness as a problem requiring a solution. Job-ready homeless housed at once would soon pay us back via their taxes. The harder cases where drugs, alcohol, or mental illness are involved require more intervention but even so taking care of them is cheaper than abusing or neglecting them as we do now.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Use markdown for basic formatting. HTML is no longer supported.
  Save me a cookie
Follow Techdirt
Techdirt Gear
Shop Now: I Invented Email
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.