US Supreme Court to hear Alaska plane forfeiture case over excessive fines clause

Washington — Fourteen years ago, the state of Alaska tried to seize a man’s $95,000 small airplane because one of his passengers attempted to bring beer into a dry village. Now, the U.S. Supreme Court will use his case to further clarify the scope of the Excessive Fines Clause.

The justices announced on Monday that they would hear Jouppi v. Alaska next term, granting them a rare opportunity to expand upon one of the Eighth Amendment’s most overlooked provisions. The case’s basic facts illustrate how states can pursue harsh financial sanctions against defendants, even for some misdemeanor offenses.

The Case in Brief

“For certain Alaskan villages, it’s a crime to bring in alcohol,” the defendant noted in his petition for review. “And when the means of importation is an airplane, the plane is subject to forfeiture. No matter that the offense is a misdemeanor. As here. No matter that the pilot is a first-time offender. As here. No matter that the alcohol is a six-pack of Budweiser. As here. No matter that it belonged to a customer. As here. The result: an airplane forfeited for a six-pack.”

What may seem strange to Americans in the Lower 48 states is likely a familiar tale to those in the Last Frontier. Alaska’s vast interior is populated by small villages, many of which have strict “dry” laws. The strictest ones forbid not only the sale of alcohol but also its importation and possession. Alaska’s state legislature gave rural communities the power to set these limits in the 1980s to address concerns about high alcoholism rates and their associated ills.

Much of Alaska’s interior can also only be reached by airplane, so residents and tourists frequently rely on small-scale private pilots to reach their destinations.

Ken Jouppi’s Story

One of those pilots is Ken Jouppi. He was in his late sixties when he flew passengers from the city of Fairbanks to the village of Beaver on his small private Cessna in 2012. A passenger on the flight was bringing groceries with her, including three cases of beer.

According to state officials, Jouppi’s company was under investigation at the time for suspected violations of state liquor laws. Alaska state troopers approached Jouppi while he was loading the plane to Beaver, found the cases of beer, and promptly arrested him and charged him with misdemeanor importation. Jouppi was sentenced to three days in jail with an additional 177 days suspended, a suspended $1,500 fine, and three years of probation.

Most importantly, state prosecutors also sought to seize Jouppi’s plane. Alaska liquor law requires forfeiture, but the trial court declined to grant it at first because the plane never actually reached Beaver. The Alaska Court of Appeals reversed that decision because state law required forfeiture either way. When the trial court reconsidered the matter, Jouppi argued that the forfeiture would violate the Excessive Fines Clause because the law only allowed a maximum $10,000 fine and the plane’s estimated value was $95,000.

The Eighth Amendment and Excessive Fines

The Eighth Amendment is best known for its ban on “cruel and unusual punishments.” Until the last 30 years or so, its prohibition of “excessive fines” received scant attention. The Supreme Court did not rule that a particular fine had breached the Excessive Fines Clause until 1998, in the case United States v. Bajakajian. The justices sided with a Syrian man who brought more than $350,000 in cash into the U.S. without formally reporting it. Though the maximum fine under the Bank Secrecy Act was $5,000, federal prosecutors seized the full $357,144.

Justice Clarence Thomas, writing for the court then, noted that the justices were breaking new ground at the time. “Until today, however, we have not articulated a standard for determining whether a punitive forfeiture is constitutionally excessive,” he wrote. “We now hold that a punitive forfeiture violates the Excessive Fines Clause if it is grossly disproportional to the gravity of a defendant’s offense.”

In the 2019 case Timbs v. Indiana, the Supreme Court held that the Excessive Fines Clause also applied to the states. But the lower courts have divided on exactly how to interpret whether a fine is “proportional” to the “gravity” of a defendant’s offense. Most courts, including the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which covers Alaska, have concluded that the fine must be proportionate to a defendant’s conduct.