It is good to see that the states are getting slapped down over the illegal seizures of peoples property no matter how justified the state thinks it is in the grab.
I think you’re going to like this new ruling from the Supreme Court.
After continual overreach by state and local governments imposing excessive fines and seizing personal property, a case recently made it to the Supreme Court and ended up with a rare 9-0 unanimous ruling!
Many are heralding it as a win for the 8th Amendment and for private property rights.
I’m personally for anything that limits and reverses the overreach of any level of government – federal, state or local.
And credit where credit is due, Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote the majority opinion (or at least is credited with writing the majority opinion).
Take a look:
Here’s more on the ruling, from our friends over at The Hill:
The Supreme Court on Wednesday ruled unanimously that states must adhere to the Constitution’s ban on excessive fines, a decision that will likely limit the ability of states to impose certain fees and seize property.
In delivering the opinion of the court, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said the Eighth Amendment guards against abuses of the government’s punitive or criminal law-enforcement authority, and that it extends to fines.
“This safeguard, we hold, is ‘fundamental to our scheme of ordered liberty,’ with ‘deep roots in our history and tradition,’” she said, quoting Supreme Court precedent.
Ginsburg, who returned to the bench for oral arguments Tuesday for the first time since undergoing surgery in December, was joined in the ruling by Chief Justice John Roberts, Justices Stephen Breyer, Samuel Alito, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh. Justice Clarence Thomas filed an opinion concurring in the judgment.
The case centered on Tyson Timbs, who pleaded guilty in Indiana state court to dealing in a controlled substance and conspiracy to commit theft. When Timbs was arrested, police seized the Land Rover he had purchased, for $42,000, from an insurance policy he received when his father died.
The state then brought a civil forfeiture suit against Timbs for his vehicle because it had been used to transport heroin. The trial court denied the state’s forfeiture request.
Since Timbs had recently purchased the vehicle for more than four times the maximum $10,000 monetary fine he can be charged for the drug conviction, the court said the forfeiture violated the Eighth Amendment.
The Indiana Supreme Court ultimately reversed that ruling, holding that the Excessive Fines Clause constrains only federal action and is inapplicable to state impositions.
The high court vacated that ruling Wednesday.