Supreme Court to weigh excessive-fines limits in asset forfeiture case

2 independent outlets are covering this story. Verification: Confirmed — reported independently by wire/mainstream and conservative outlets. Patriot Watch links to original reporting; we don't republish it.

Read the story at Reason →

What we know

The Supreme Court will consider a case involving the Excessive Fines Clause as it applies to asset forfeiture. The case could set limits on when seized property qualifies as an excessive fine.

Patriot Watch first flagged this story 2 d ago, when Supreme Court reported it. Coverage has since grown to 2 independent outlets. The most recent report came 4 hr ago from Reason. Verification tier: Confirmed — reported independently by wire/mainstream and conservative outlets.

⚖ The Constitutional Angle

Austin v. United States held that the Eighth Amendment Excessive Fines Clause reaches civil in rem forfeitures because such forfeitures serve at least partly as punishment tied to the owner culpability. Timbs v. Indiana then extended that protection against the states. Any limit the Court sets on seized property as an excessive fine follows directly from these holdings.

Richard Lyle Austin v. United States 509 U.S. 602 (1993)

Vote: 9-0 in the judgment (opinion of the Court for five)

The Excessive Fines Clause applies to in rem civil forfeitures. After Austin pleaded guilty to a state cocaine charge, the federal government civilly forfeited his mobile home and auto body shop under 21 U.S.C. §§881(a)(4) and (a)(7). The Court held the Eighth Amendment's Excessive Fines Clause is not limited to criminal proceedings: because forfeiture under these provisions serves at least in part as punishment — they contain an innocent-owner exception and are tied to the owner's culpability — such forfeitures are 'fines' subject to the excessiveness limit.

Tyson Timbs v. Indiana 586 U.S. 146 (2019)

Vote: 9-0 in the judgment (Ginsburg opinion for eight; Thomas concurring in the judgment only)

Excessive Fines incorporated against the states. Indiana sought to forfeit Timbs's Land Rover — purchased with insurance proceeds from his father's death, and worth roughly four times the maximum fine for his drug offense — as an instrumentality of drug transport.

Precedent facts from the PW Law Library — primary-source verified & independently audited