The Iowa Supreme Court is again being asked to consider whether state courts can bill bad defendants for their court-appointed attorneys, even when they are acquitted or charges against them are dropped.

If the court takes up the case, State of Iowa vs. Ronald Pagliaiwill be the second time in recent years that the Iowa Supreme Court has ruled on the state’s unusually aggressive practice of billing bad defendants for court-appointed attorneys. Several civil liberties groups—the Fines and Fees Justice Center (FFJC), the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Iowa, and Public Justice—filed a amicus brief in that case earlier this month, arguing that the state’s fee system is unconstitutionally vague and violates the presumption of innocence by imposing sanctions on unconvicted defendants.

“Courts cannot maintain a fair justice system if they fund it on the backs of the most vulnerable people who come before them,” Lisa Foster, co-executive director of FFJC, said in a press release. “To further extend this miscarriage of justice by enforcing it even when the case is dismissed sends a clear message that puts profit over people.”

Everyone knows the part of the Miranda rights game about having a right to an attorney, but fewer know that a constitutionally guaranteed attorney is not necessarily free.

According to a 2022 Report of the National Legal Aid and Defender Association (NLADA), 42 states and the District of Columbia allow courts to charge fees for public defender systems. But civil rights groups and news investigations say Iowa is extreme in the amount of the fee and the fact that it bills defendants whose charges were thrown out.

In February, The Marshall Projecta nonprofit news outlet covering the criminal justice system, reported about how the Iowa court system saddled indigent defendants with debt for their court-appointed attorneys, even in cases where they were acquitted.

2015, Lori Mathes, one of the main subjects of The Marshall Project”s story, was charged with a felony drug offense after police found two grams of marijuana in her home. She could not afford a lawyer and was given a court-appointed attorney. Prosecutors struck a deal with Mathes two years later to dismiss her case in exchange for her agreeing to pay court fines and fees. Mathes was shocked to receive a bill for $3,000 in Indigent Defense Fee Reimbursement (IDFR) costs.

Mathes appealed her allegations to the Iowa Supreme Court, which in 2020 issued a split 3-3 ruling, leaving intact the lower court decisions that upheld her charges.

IN State of Iowa vs. Ronald PagliaiPagliai was assessed $489 in IDFR costs for two charges related to alleged shoplifting, although the charges were dismissed.

The Marshall Project’s analysis of Iowa court data found that between 2012 and 2022, the state sent bills totaling $30 million to indigent defendants who were acquitted or had charges dropped.

Iowa does not require courts to consider whether defendants can afford IDFR costs, which by definition they are unlikely to. As a result, not only does the system saddle poor defendants with debt, but the state rarely collects on those debts either. The NLADA report found that “in recent years, no more than 3.2 percent of assessed costs for legal fees have been collected annually.”

Still, the system has its defenders.

“I think the purpose of it is simply to hold them accountable a little bit,” said Iowa state Rep. Brian Lohse, a Republican who chairs the Judiciary Appropriations Committee. The Marshall Project. “So they just don’t see it as some kind of gift.”

The Sixth Amendment guarantees accused criminals the right to counsel during the landmark 1963 Supreme Court case Gideon v. Wainwright. It is as much a “gift” as the First Amendment right to criticize the government without facing reprisal.

However, there are public defense systems across the country underfunded and overworkedand in many cases simply do not have the resources to provide their clients with competent representation.

Rita Bettis Austen, legal director of the ACLU of Iowa, said in a press release that it is “fundamentally unfair to charge someone who is exercising his constitutional right to free counsel.”

“By definition, these are circumstances where the state has already determined that someone is indigent and cannot afford their own attorney,” Austen continued. “It’s even worse when the state charges someone for those costs when the charges are ultimately dismissed. Everyone is innocent until proven guilty under the law.”

The Iowa Supreme Court will now decide whether to retain the case or send it to a lower appeals court.