US Supreme Court rules state civil forfeitures covered by 8th Amendment excessive fines protection

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled emphatically Wednesday that the excessive fines clause of the 8th Amendment is an incorporated right and thus applicable to state civil forfeiture actions.

In the underlying case, Indiana resident Tyson Timbs pleaded guilty to drug charges after selling heroin to an undercover officer. When he was arrested, state police seized his vehicle and sued for civil forfeiture on the grounds that it was used to transport heroin.

Though the court found the Land Rover SUV was used in connection with Timbs' crimes, it denied forfeiture because the car's $42,000 value far exceeded the $10,000 maximum fine for his crimes. Thus, the court ruled, it violated the excessive fines clause.

The Court of Appeals of Indiana agreed with the trial court, but the Indiana Supreme Court reversed, holding that the clause only affects federal actions.

"The historical and logical case for concluding that the 14th Amendment incorporates the excessive fines clause is overwhelming," wrote Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg in the opinion. "Protection against excessive punitive economic sanctions secured by the clause is, to repeat, both "fundamental to our scheme of ordered liberty" and "deeply rooted in this nation's history and tradition."

Ginsburg pointed to the court's unanimous decision in Austin v. United States, 509 U. S. 602 (1993), in which it ruled that forfeitures fall under the clause's protection when they are partly punitive.

"The court was unanimous in deciding that the Indiana Supreme Court was wrong to reject the excessive fines defense that Tyson raised outright," said Wesley Hottot of Institute for Justice, who represented Timbs. "This signals to judges across the nation that there are limits to civil forfeiture."

Hottot said that the decision was another step in a "long march" toward incorporating constitutional protections at the state level, which the Supreme Court has repeatedly done.

"We appreciate the court's attention to the important issues raised in this case. Although we argued for a different outcome, we respect the court's decision," said Indiana Attorney General Curtis Hill in an emailed statement.

Indiana Solicitor General Thomas Fisher argued for the state that the excessive fines clause could not be incorporated, and that it does not apply to property forfeitures.

Justices Neil Gorsuch and Sonia Sotomayor expressed open skepticism of Indiana's position during oral arguments last year.

"Most of these incorporation cases took place in like the 1940s, and here we are in 2018 still litigating incorporation of the Bill of Rights. Really? Come on, General," Gorsuch said to Fisher.

Gorsuch and Sotomayor indicated at the time that the court was disinclined to revisit Austin, which Fisher said was the "most historically sound thing to do."

"Because that's the only way you can win with a straight face?" Sotomayor asked.

"Let's say this court's not inclined to revisit Austin. You're going to lose not just the incorporation question but the merits question too," Gorsuch said.

"I think Justices Gorsuch and [Brett M.] Kavanaugh were correct to express bewilderment that we were still arguing this issue," Hottot said.

Gorsuch and Justice Clarence Thomas also filed concurring opinions. Both rejected Indiana's arguments wholesale as well, but argued that the excessive fines clause is best incorporated under a different section of the 14th Amendment.

Ginsburg wrote that the due process clause incorporates protections against excessive fines. Gorsuch and Thomas opined that the best vehicle is the privileges or immunities clause.

The Indiana attorney general did not respond to follow-up questions on whether his statement meant the state would not pursue the case further on remand, or whether it intended to return Timbs' vehicle.

Hottot said that civil forfeiture has gotten out of control, and that this case is an important step toward limiting the practice, which does not necessarily require an owner be charged with a crime before property is seized.

"We now know that all 330 million Americans are guaranteed protection against excessive fines," he said. "Now the only question is, will Tyson get his truck back?"