California High Court Rules Judges Must Assess Ability to Pay

The California Supreme Court on December 29, 2025 issued a majority opinion in People v. Kopp that requires trial judges to evaluate a criminal defendant's ability to pay before imposing fines, fees or certain court assessments tied to a conviction. Decided by a 6 to 1 majority, the opinion authored by Justice Carol Corrigan directs courts to address inability to pay when defendants raise the issue, and to refrain from levying costs that would be constitutionally suspect or unequally applied.

The decision explicitly requires judicial consideration of inability to pay upon request before imposing the court operations assessment under Penal Code section 1465.8 and before imposing court facilities assessments cited in the opinion. The majority framed criminal fines as principally subject to excessive fines analysis under federal and state constitutions, while stating that administrative assessments raise separate equal protection concerns when they fall on indigent defendants who cannot afford them.

The ruling resolves a long running split among California courts that followed the Court of Appeal's 2019 People v. Dueñas decision, which had required consideration of ability to pay for many criminal monetary obligations. Lower courts reached sharply different outcomes in the intervening years, producing a patchwork of practice across the state. The Kopp opinion provides a statewide rule intended to bring uniformity to sentencing and postconviction financial orders.

Beyond the immediate holdings on fines and assessments, the decision connects to earlier bail and pretrial litigation. Coverage of the opinion linked it to the Humphrey litigation and the First District Court of Appeal's 2018 decision in Kenneth Humphrey's case. Those earlier rulings and the California Supreme Court's 2021 In re Humphrey decision emphasized consideration of a defendant's financial circumstances and available nonmonetary alternatives when courts set bail. Observers say the Kopp ruling will reinforce that judicial attention to ability to pay should inform both pretrial release conditions and postconviction monetary sanctions.

Advocates and defense attorneys hailed the decision as a significant step against the criminalization of poverty. Public defenders argue that mandatory inquiry into financial capacity will reduce the disproportionate impact of court debt on low income Californians and communities of color. Mano Raju, San Francisco Public Defender, said the state Supreme Court ruling will eliminate cash bail that harms low income communities and should serve as a clarification for judges in the pretrial phase while public defenders continue to press for full application of the standards.

Government reaction included a statement attributed to Becerra who called requiring consideration of ability to pay in bail determinations "a critical step forward for fairness in our bail system" and indicated support for weighing pretrial detention against a person’s capacity to pay bail.

The practical implications will fall to trial courts. Judges will now face the task of developing consistent inquiry procedures, recording findings and considering nonmonetary alternatives where appropriate. Prosecutors, public defenders and court administrators are likely to litigate the contours of when and how inability to pay must be proved and what relief will follow. For millions of Californians who face court imposed financial burdens, the decision alters the legal landscape and adds a new judicial safeguard against fines and fees that effectively punish poverty.