The 230-year-old law still impacting Chattanooga
One obscure sentence written at the state’s founding continues to chafe against modern city governance
The Fifty-Dollar Fines Clause as seen in the state constitution over time. Graphic/William Newlin
By William Newlin
In Chattanooga, the maximum fine for speeding is $50. For illegal dumping? Also $50. In fact, Chattanooga City Court can't impose a fine greater than $50 for any violation of city code due to a unique (and really old) Tennessee law that caps punitive fines.
A law since the Volunteer State entered the union in 1796, the so-called “Fifty-Dollar Fines Clause” quietly survived two full constitutional rewrites before drawing renewed scrutiny in the 21st century.
Article VI, Section 14: “No fine shall be laid on any citizen of this State that shall exceed fifty dollars, unless it shall be assessed by a jury of his peers …”
A 2001 Tennessee Supreme Court ruling outlined the history of the law, saying it was “unique in the whole of American constitutional law, and no other provision like it may be found in either the Federal Constitution or in any other modern state constitution.”
The ruling went on to clarify how this one-of-a-kind law continues to constrain the way Tennessee's municipal governments enforce their city and town codes.
Most cases heard in Tennessee's city courts are traffic violations. Animal welfare and property code violations go to city court, too. But more serious civil cases often land in state or federal courtrooms, where juries and judges can assess heftier fines.
Charges in city courts can top $50 with added court fees or if someone receives multiple citations at the same time (say for speeding and not wearing a seatbelt). But the overall effect of the Fifty-Dollar Fines Clause means that city judges across the state are limited in their punitive power. And $50 fines in today’s cash have a much lighter impact than they did in the 18th century.
Graphic/William Newlin
A fine line
Cases related to the Fifty-Dollar Fines Clause bubbled up in state courts over time as defendants used a constitutional argument to contest certain city-imposed fines.
In 1964, a Knoxville man received a $100 fine for driving under the influence. In 1991, a Chattanoogan faced a $300 fine for reckless driving. Both claimed the fines violated the state constitution. The decisions in those cases led to the 2001 Tennessee Supreme Court ruling mentioned above, which delved deep into the implications of the $50 cap.
In a lengthy, unanimous opinion, the court ruled city governments can impose both fines and civil penalties for city code violations. If the intent is punishment, the city is imposing a fine, limited to $50. If the intent is remediation, or correcting the offense, the city is imposing a civil penalty that is not subject to constitutional limit. For instance, landfill fees to dump litter or junk removed from a property are potential recoverable costs.
According to the University of Tennessee’s Municipal Technical Advisory Service (MTAS), collecting more than $50 for a code violation — even as a civil penalty — can still lead to a constitutional challenge.
“The difficulty of showing that a municipality’s civil penalty is remedial rather than punitive means that most municipalities will find it in their interest not to levy civil penalties more than $50,” MTAS attorney Sid Hemsley wrote in 2001.
Off-court fouls
The office of the Tennessee Attorney General wrote an opinion in 2005 stating the $50 fine limit applies only to the court system. And not every municipal code violation lands in city court — local administrative boards, such as a beer board, can levy heftier penalties.
In Chattanooga, the beer board can issue a $2,500 civil penalty for selling alcohol to a minor. The joint city and Hamilton County air pollution control board can levy a civil penalty of up to $25,000 per day for excessive or harmful emissions. Both of those maximum penalties are set in state law as well.
Tennessee lawmakers gave local governments another out-of-court enforcement tool in 2010. They authorized cities and towns to create a position called an “administrative hearing officer” (AHO).
Appointed hearing officers, trained by MTAS, can issue fines of up to $500 for violations of many local ordinances, including building, energy, and property maintenance codes.
Chattanooga City Council approved two administrative hearing officers in 2023 with the authority to hear cases involving violations of the above codes as well as the city’s zoning and short-term vacation rental ordinances.
Code violators cited to the AHO have the option to remedy the violation. Within a certain timeframe, they could get their building up to code or reign in the overgrowth on their property to avoid the fine.
A constitutional lesson
In 1999, an advocacy and lobbying group for the state’s cities and towns, the Tennessee Municipal League (TML), tried to finally put the Fifty-Dollar Fines Clause to rest. TML worked to put a constitutional amendment on the ballot that would allow the General Assembly to set a new ceiling for municipal fines.
A majority of Tennessee voters approved the TML-supported amendment in the 2002 gubernatorial election. The final tally was 53% to 47% in favor.
But it didn’t pass.
Here’s another constitutional provision to know: In Tennessee, amendments only take effect if they’re approved by more than half of the total votes cast in the governor’s race.
In 2002, about 702,000 Tennesseans voted in favor of amending the $50 fine limit. However, votes in the race for governor totaled more than 1.6 million, leaving the amendment about 120,000 “yes” votes short of the threshold for approval.
How an amendment to the Tennessee Constitution gets approved:
A simple majority vote by one general assembly (i.e. one two-year session)
A two-thirds majority by a subsequent general assembly (i.e. another two-year session)
Then, it goes on the ballot and must pass by a majority of those who vote in a gubernatorial election
The Fifty-Dollar Fines Clause will celebrate its 229th birthday next February. A parable of resilience? A “what-in-the-world, how?” oversight by generations of lawmakers? An exemplar of small government? Someday, voters might have the option to once again decide with their ballots.
Email William at william@chattamatters.com