Published July 19, 2026 at 5:47 AM ET · Updated July 20, 2026 at 4:05 PM ET
Supreme Court to weigh whether Alaska's $95,000 fine for a six-pack of Budweiser was excessive
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.
The Supreme Court will decide whether a $95,000 fine imposed on an Alaska man for a six-pack of Budweiser was excessive. The case examines the fairness of the penalty under the Constitution.
Patriot Watch first flagged this story 1 d ago, when Supreme Court reported it. Coverage has since grown to 2 independent outlets. The most recent report came 11 hr ago from Washington Times. Verification tier: Confirmed — reported independently by wire/mainstream and conservative outlets.
⚖ The Constitutional Angle
Timbs made the Excessive Fines Clause binding on the states, so Alaska's fine faces that constitutional limit. Austin confirmed the clause reaches penalties that punish. The slices do not settle the test for whether $95,000 for a six-pack is excessive.
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.
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.
Precedent facts from the PW Law Library — primary-source verified & independently audited
