The Supreme Court will soon consider a case that legal scholars say could fundamentally reshape how courts interpret the Constitution’s prohibition against excessive fines, a protection that traces its lineage back eight centuries to the Magna Carta.
At the center of Jouppi v. Alaska sits Kenneth Jouppi, now 82 years old, whose livelihood was effectively destroyed when the state of Alaska confiscated his 1969 Cessna aircraft over a misdemeanor violation involving a six-pack of beer.
The facts of the case are straightforward. In 2012, Jouppi operated a one-man air taxi service in Alaska’s remote interior. On the day in question, he was preparing to transport a customer and her groceries from Fairbanks to the village of Beaver, located in the state’s sparsely populated center. Alaska state troopers executed a search warrant on his plane and discovered alcohol on board, including the six-pack they reported as plainly visible.
Jouppi maintains he was unaware his passenger had brought the beer. The possession of alcohol itself was not illegal. However, the village of Beaver had banned both the possession and sale of alcohol within its boundaries. Jouppi was subsequently convicted of alcohol importation, a misdemeanor offense.
Under Alaska’s alcohol importation statute, the state supreme court determined that authorities were required to confiscate Jouppi’s Cessna, valued at $95,000. For an 82-year-old man whose sole source of income derived from that aircraft, the seizure represented not merely a fine, but the effective end of his ability to earn a living.
Jouppi has challenged the confiscation as a violation of the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which reads: “Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.”
Cully Stimson, a senior legal fellow at the Heritage Foundation, characterized the case as one that freedom-minded Americans have long awaited. The disproportion between offense and penalty appears stark. A misdemeanor conviction resulting from unknowingly transporting beer led to the confiscation of property worth nearly one hundred thousand dollars and the destruction of a man’s means of supporting himself.
The principle that governments should not be permitted to impose ruinous fines upon their citizens is not new to American jurisprudence. It extends back to 1215 and the Magna Carta, the English charter that first established limits on royal power and enshrined the concept that even rulers must submit to the law. The framers of the Constitution, well versed in English legal tradition, incorporated this protection into the Bill of Rights.
What remains to be determined is whether modern courts will recognize that eight centuries of legal precedent prohibit the kind of seizure Alaska executed against Jouppi. The case presents the Supreme Court with an opportunity to clarify the scope of Eighth Amendment protections and establish clear boundaries on the government’s power to impose financial penalties that bear no reasonable relationship to the underlying offense.
Oral arguments are scheduled for December. The decision could have far-reaching implications for asset forfeiture practices across the nation and reaffirm constitutional limits on governmental power that date back nearly a millennium.
Related: President Trump to Meet with Technology Leaders on Artificial Intelligence Policy
