Michigan House Rep. Sarah Lightner Pushes to Eliminate Court Fees Sunset, Warns of Budget Cuts Coming

Michigan House Representative Sarah Lightner is fighting to make court fees permanent, arguing that eliminating the current expiration for court authority to levy fees on defendants would be "counterproductive" to maintaining a properly funded court system.

The issue comes as legislators prepare to return from spring break on April 14 to resume work on the state's fiscal 2027 budget, which Lightner and other lawmakers expect to include significant cuts.

In a recent interview with Podcast 83, Lightner, a former Jackson County commissioner and leading voice in the Republican majority in the Michigan House, described her legislation to eliminate the sunset provision on court fee collection as something she's "have to have every about two years."

"This is nothing new. It's a fight we have to have every about two years, in regard to collecting costs from defendants," Lightner said. "And to eliminate that (authority) would be counterproductive."

To Lightner, the courts operate on a "pay-to-play" model where those who make mistakes in the legal system should bear the costs. "You know, you screw up, you should pay for it. I shouldn't have to pay for 100 percent of your stupidity," she explained.

Beyond individual fees, Lightner highlighted the geographic disparities in court costs across Michigan. "It's funny you bring up core funding. I actually had the (state court administrator) and legal counsel in my office for about an hour yesterday, going over some of this, and then talking about actually eliminating the sunset, because the current bill I have actually eliminates it rather than extending it, because to me, it's one thing that judges already have judicial discretion to get rid of it, right?"

She continued, "For individuals. But I don't think it's necessary for us to continue to keep coming back every couple of years to the Legislature and ask, 'Oh, can we keep collecting costs?'"

Lightner also pointed to the inequity in how costs vary by location. "I think it's absolutely absurd that just because you're in a different region of the state, an arraignment would cost three times more than it does in Ingham County, or Jackson County, or Calhoun County."

The state's fiscal 2027 budget represents a significant challenge for Michigan's lawmakers. As legislators prepare to return from their spring break, they face the task of addressing expected cuts across state government.

The fiscal 2027 budget process is particularly important as Michigan courts have repeatedly requested fee authority extensions to maintain adequate funding for their operations. Without these extensions, courts face potential funding shortfalls that could impact their ability to process cases and maintain essential services.

Lightner's push to eliminate the sunset provision reflects a broader Republican strategy to stabilize court funding through user fees rather than general revenue. This approach has faced criticism from court administrators and legal experts who argue it creates uncertainty and puts additional burdens on those already navigating the legal system.

The debate over court fees and the fiscal 2027 budget comes at a time when Michigan's court system is grappling with staffing challenges and resource constraints. The state has seen growing demands on its judicial infrastructure, from increased caseloads to rising legal costs.

As the legislative session resumes in two weeks, lawmakers will need to navigate these complex budgetary decisions while balancing competing priorities across education, healthcare, infrastructure, and court funding.

The outcome of these decisions will have lasting impacts on Michigan's court system and the services it provides to residents throughout the state.