Rep. Johnson introduces legislation to limit court fees

Legislation – spurred by ‘Snyder case’ – would strengthen democracy, fair access to courts:

Congressman Hank Johnson, who represents Georgia’s Fourth Congressional District and serves as Chairman for the Subcommittee on Courts and Competition Policy of the Judiciary Committee, introduced H.R. 5069 – the “Fair Payment of Court Fees Act of 2010.”

Congressman Johnson introduced today the “Fair Payment of Court Fees Act of 2010,” which would allow litigants greater access to the courts to pursue their cases without fear of excessive court penalties.

A recent case led to a national outcry after a federal court ordered the father of a fallen soldier, Marine Lance Cpl. Matthew Snyder of Westminster, Md., to pay more than $16,000 to members of the Westboro Baptist Church, who picketed Snyder’s funeral because they believe that military deaths are punishment for the United States’ tolerance of homosexuality.

Snyder’s father, Albert Snyder, successfully sued the church but later lost on appeal and was forced to reimburse the church for a portion of the fees incurred due to the litigation.

“The family of Matthew Snyder – a hero who died in service to his country in Iraq – was forced to pay a portion of the other side’s legal fees simply because the lower court judgment was reversed,” said Johnson. “That’s simply not fair.”

Currently, provisions in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, while well intentioned to discourage abuses to the appeal process and encourage settlement, create a blanket policy to discourage pursuit of justice through the appeals process.

"That policy quite simply goes too far, creating unfair results, and inevitably will prevent litigants from pursuing legitimate appeals or encourage the parties to settle when they want a court to hear the case,” Johnson said.

“The bill I have introduced today will prevent similar injustices by giving courts discretion to evaluate whether the payment should be waived in the interest of justice including instances where constitutional or other important precedent are at issue. Strict application of the Rules has been detrimental to the public interest. So this legislation would allow our Judges to use their discretion to determine when these fees should be waived. Our courthouse doors must remain open to pursue legitimate claims.”

###