California Senate Bill SB54

California 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 1/7/25
• Refer: 1/29/25
• Report Pass: 4/9/25
• Refer: 4/9/25
• Report Pass: 4/29/25
• Refer: 4/29/25
• Report Pass: 5/23/25
• Engrossed: 5/29/25
• Refer: 6/5/25
• Report Pass: 6/17/25
• Refer: 6/17/25
• Report Pass: 7/16/25
• Refer: 7/16/25
• Report Pass: 8/29/25
• Enrolled: 9/8/25
• Chaptered: 10/11/25
• Passed: 10/11/25

Caption

An act to amend Section 68632 of the Government Code, relating to courts.

Summary

SB 54 amends California Government Code Section 68632, which governs when courts must grant an initial waiver of filing fees and other civil court costs based on an applicant’s financial condition. The bill makes a targeted change to the income test used for fee waivers by directing that veterans’ disability service-connected compensation may not be counted as monthly income when determining whether an applicant qualifies under the 200%-of-poverty-guidelines standard. The practical effect is to make it easier for veterans receiving service-connected disability compensation to qualify for court fee waivers, even if that compensation would otherwise push them above the income threshold. The bill does not change the broader fee-waiver framework, which still covers applicants receiving specified public benefits, applicants under the poverty-guideline income test, applicants who cannot pay without sacrificing basic necessities, and certain guardianship or conservatorship filers. It was chaptered as Chapter 646, Statutes of 2025, and became law on October 11, 2025.

Impact

SB 54 narrows the definition of “monthly income” in Government Code Section 68632(b)(3) by excluding veterans disability service-connected compensation from the calculation used for court fee waivers. This affects how courts, the Judicial Council’s fee-waiver forms and tables, and applicants evaluate eligibility under the income-based waiver provision. The bill leaves the rest of the fee-waiver statute intact, including the public-benefits categories and the separate hardship-based standard.

Sentiment

The bill appears to have been broadly and consistently supported. Committee and floor votes were unanimous or near-unanimous at each recorded stage, and the bill was repeatedly recommended for the consent calendar. The absence of recorded opposition or committee transcript controversy suggests the measure was viewed as a narrow, noncontroversial veterans’ access-to-justice fix.

Contention

There is little evidence of substantive opposition in the available record. The only likely policy issue is whether veterans disability compensation should be treated as income for means-testing purposes; SB 54 resolves that question in favor of excluding it. Any concern would likely have centered on the administrative effect of changing fee-waiver eligibility and the precedent of carving out specific income sources, but no recorded votes or transcripts show organized resistance.