Friends Of The Court, Foes Of Financially Driven “Justice”

There is a fundamental problem with revenue-driven justice systems: They encourage officials to bypass fair adjudication for financial gain. We’ve come to understand this problem through IJ research like Policing for Profit, which quantifies the real-world harms of such abuse. We’ve secured reform in statehouses and courthouses nationwide. But not every case is suitable for IJ-style litigation, so sometimes we help others’ efforts by filing friend-of-the-court (amicus) briefs—as in Roberts v. Thompson, a recent federal appellate case. 

In Black Hawk County, Iowa, a sheriff allegedly pressures people released from jail to sign “confessions of judgment” that waive their right to challenge fees from their detention. This strips plaintiffs of the ability to fight the fees while funneling 40% of the proceeds to the sheriff’s office, which reinvests them in perks like laser tag and celebrations at a shooting range with cotton candy. The trial court dismissed the case on procedural grounds.

On appeal, we filed an amicus brief making two arguments at the core of our expertise. We first argued that the trial court misapplied standing doctrine. We relied on our experience litigating against procedural barriers that can frustrate constitutional litigation in virtually every area within IJ’s mission, from occupational licensing to property rights to government accountability.

We then highlighted the real-world harms of revenue-generating systems, which create perverse incentives for government to extract funds through fines, fees, and forfeitures. We drew on our own successful litigation to show the extent of the abuse: how Brookside, Alabama’s traffic-stop and car-towing program left residents stranded roadside, or how grandparents lost their cars to Wilmington, Delaware’s parking-ticket and impounding scheme.

Fortunately, the appeals court recognized the lower court’s errors and revived the plaintiffs’ claims. Though the opinion doesn’t mention our brief, we think it had an impact; the court applied the procedural analysis we advocated. IJ can’t be everywhere, but our expertise can reach even the counsel tables we don’t sit at—ensuring that the government’s pursuit of financial gain never overrides the promise of due process.

Katrin Marquez is an IJ attorney.