U.S. Supreme Court decides excessive fines forfeiture case against state

In a unanimous decision, the United States Supreme Court held in Timbs v. Indiana, that the Eighth Amendment’s Excessive Fines Clause is applicable to states and local governments. The State of Indiana sought to forfeit Tyson Timbs’ Land Rover, valued at $42,000, which Timbs was driving when arrested for selling heroin to an undercover officer. Timbs purchased the Land Rover with insurance proceeds he received after the death of his father. The trial court concluded the forfeiture was unconstitutional under the Eighth Amendment’s Excessive Fines Clause because the value of the vehicle well exceeded the maximum statutory fine for the felony Timbs plead guilty to, which was $10,000. The Indiana Supreme Court held the Excessive Fines Clause doesn’t apply to the states.

In an opinion written by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the U.S. Supreme Court disagreed holding that the Excessive Fines Clause of the Eight Amendment is incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. If a Bill of Rights protection is incorporated, “there is no daylight between the federal and state conduct it prohibits or requires.”

The court further explained that the Excessive Fines Clause is “fundamental to our scheme of ordered liberty” and “deeply rooted in the nation’s history and tradition” because it traces its “venerable lineage” back to at least the Magna Carta in 1215. The court reasoned that, “for good reason, the protection against excessive fines has been a constant shield throughout Anglo-American history.”

When the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted in 1868, 35 of the 37 states prohibited excessive fines. Today, “all 50 States have a constitutional provision prohibiting the imposition of excessive fines either directly or by requiring proportionality.”