An attempt to halt the collection of Virginia's controversial civil remedial fees foundered Tuesday in Roanoke County Circuit Court.

A team of attorneys asked Judge Jim Swanson to impose an injunction that would prevent enforcement of the new law statewide, but the judge denied the request, expressing skepticism that he had authority to ban the fee collection.

Swanson also questioned whether the attorneys' lawsuit, which argues that the new law is unconstitutional, will be able to strike it from the books. "I have serious doubts as to the ultimate success of the plaintiffs' constitutional challenges," he said. "At this point, the law in my view is facially valid."

But the judge held off deciding whether to dismiss the case, as attorneys for the state requested.

"We live to fight another day," said John Fishwick, one of the attorneys challenging the abuser fees. "We think the case will continue to move forward."

The fees, which can reach $3,000 for a felony offense, took effect July 1 and have since stirred controversy statewide. They are expected to generate $65 million annually for highway maintenance.

Fishwick's firm filed the suit on behalf of 81-year-old Mary Elizabeth Minter, a Roanoke resident living on a fixed income who was charged with reckless driving in a July 29 traffic crash on Williamson Road. If convicted, she would face a civil remedial fee of $1,050, which her attorneys say she cannot afford.

The attorneys have since added another client to the suit: Amy Renee Johnson, convicted of a misdemeanor count of driving under the influence in Roanoke General District Court on July 23. Johnson has paid the first $750 installment of a $2,250 fee, according to court documents.

"Because I had to pay this money at once, I am now having to borrow money from family in order to pay basic living expenses for myself and my child," Johnson said in an affidavit.

The suit presents Minter and Johnson as "virtual representatives" of other Virginia residents facing the same fees, but Swanson told their attorneys he did not believe the doctrine of virtual representation could apply in their case. In effect, he said, Fishwick's team is trying to create a class action lawsuit, which Virginia does not recognize.

There is still a possibility that more people could become part of the suit. "We think we have a number of folks out there who have standing to challenge this law," Fishwick said after the hearing.

In court, Fishwick and fellow attorney Devon Munro argued that the abuser fees violate the state constitution.

The fees are in fact fines intended to punish crimes, they said. But the state constitution calls for all fines to be used for the state literacy fund. Because the abuser fees instead fund roads, they are unconstitutional, the attorneys argued.

The attorneys also argued that the fees unfairly punish Virginia residents more harshly than out-of-state drivers, to whom the fees do not apply.

Assistant Attorney General Mike Melis argued that the entire lawsuit should be dismissed because of sovereign immunity, which bars lawsuits against the government and its employees unless a judge rules the case can proceed.

Melis said that while there is controversy regarding the popularity of the law and whether it's good policy, state authorities consider it constitutional.

The furor over the law has caused state legislators to pledge they will tweak it when they reconvene in January.

Swanson, who peppered both sides with challenging questions during the hearing, said that two previous circuit court challenges to the constitutionality of the law, in Henrico County and Westmoreland County, resulted in the law's being upheld.

Fishwick told the judge the Roanoke County suit contains arguments that weren't used in those cases.