US Supreme Court to hear Alaska plane forfeiture case over Excessive Fines Clause

Ken Jouppi. (Institute for Justice)

Background

In Timbs v. Indiana (2019), the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the Excessive Fines Clause of the Eighth Amendment applies to state governments. The Court also held that asset forfeitures—the confiscation of property that may have been used to facilitate a crime—qualify as fines subject to the Clause. However, the ruling provided little guidance on what constitutes "excessive," leading to widespread uncertainty and disagreement among lower state and federal courts.

The Case: Jouppi v. Alaska

The Supreme Court has recently agreed to hear Jouppi v. Alaska.

Ken Jouppi is an Alaska "bush pilot" who flies passengers to remote areas. In 2012, authorities caught him transporting a passenger who had 72 cans of beer to a "dry" village where alcohol importation is banned. State law criminalizes the transportation of alcoholic beverages to such villages.

Penalties Imposed

• Criminal penalty: $1,500 fine and three days in jail
• Asset forfeiture: Confiscation of Jouppi's plane, valued at approximately $95,000

There is some dispute over whether Jouppi knew about all 72 cans or only the visible six-pack. The Alaska Supreme Court ruled this issue irrelevant, stating that courts must defer heavily to the legislature on what constitutes a serious enough offense to justify massive forfeitures. The court noted: "It is clear to us that the legislature determined that the harm from even a six-pack of beer knowingly imported into a dry village is severe enough to warrant forfeiture of an aircraft."

Legal Analysis

Proportionality Concerns

The illegal transportation of 72 cans of beer—let alone just six—appears far from severe enough to justify forfeiture of a plane worth $95,000. In a previous case, the Supreme Court indicated that a fine is "excessive" if it is "grossly disproportionate" to the "gravity" of the underlying offense. That standard remains unclear, and the Court is expected to provide greater detail in this case.

Deference to the Legislature

The Alaska Supreme Court's ruling that courts must give broad deference to the legislature on such issues undermines the purpose of the Excessive Fines Clause, which is to limit legislative power. Under this logic, a legislature could exempt almost any fine from invalidation simply by claiming the underlying offense is severe. For example, the forfeiture of a $1 million house could be justified because the owner used it to store an illegally purchased cigarette.

Broader Judicial Trends

This reasoning reflects a tendency among many jurists to defer to the legislature on property rights issues in ways they would not accept for other constitutional rights. The Kelo "public use" takings case is a notable example of this problem.

The Severity of the Offense

The Alaska Supreme Court's reasoning about the severity of the crime is not based on the notion that illegal alcohol transportation is itself a grave offense. Instead, the court argued that it indirectly contributes to excessive drinking, which leads to crime and social pathology in rural Alaska, where law enforcement has limited resources.

This chain of reasoning is questionable. The Prohibition era demonstrated that prohibiting alcohol sales is a poor strategy for combating crime and actually exacerbates it by facilitating organized crime and associated violence. If Alaska law enforcement lacks resources to address crimes arising from alcohol abuse, those scarce resources should not be wasted on enforcing prohibition. Instead, more officers should be targeting violent crime directly.

While these points may be seen as policy considerations normally left to the legislature, courts should scrutinize them when—as in this case—they form part of the government's rationale for arguing that a forfeiture is not "excessive."