Topeka ? In a ruling that is viewed as strengthening home rule for local governments, the Kansas Supreme Court on Friday upheld the authority of municipal courts to charge higher fees than are spelled out in state law.

The case involves a class-action lawsuit filed against the city of Wichita by Michael Farha, who claimed the municipal court exceeded its authority in assessing him $73 in court costs along with a $100 fine for inattentive driving.

He said the city went beyond the home-rule powers to set fees and costs for services.

Writing the unanimous opinion for the state’s highest court, Justice Carol A. Beier dismissed that argument and said Wichita had the “constitutional right to reject state regulation in favor of local control.”

She also said the case advanced the liberal interpretation of home-rule powers as established in the Kansas Constitution, “construed for the purpose of giving to cities the largest measure of self-government.”

Had the court ruled against the city, municipalities across the state stood to lose millions of dollars that pay for such things as judges and clerks.

Sandy Jacquot, general counsel for the League of Kansas Municipalities, said the ruling has a broader impact on local governments than just court fees.

“We’re very pleased, because that affects not just municipal court ordinances, but probably thousands of charter ordinances across much of the state,” Jacquot said.

The Supreme Court had ruled in an earlier case that the legislative act containing the court-cost statute was not uniformly applied to Kansas cities, allowing cities to pass ordinances opting out of the state fee schedule.

When a state statute doesn’t have a uniform application statewide, local governments can pass a charter ordinance, exempting themselves from that statute. Cities later pass a regular ordinance that outlines how the law will be applied.

Jacquot said the public has adequate time to voice concerns about the court fees when a city is deciding to pass a charter ordinance. If enough signatures are obtained on a protest petition, a special election is held, she said.

The court agreed, saying individuals assessed the additional court costs were given proper procedural protections.