Supreme Court likely to apply ‘excessive fines’ bans to states
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Wednesday took up a case from Indiana to settle a question that might seem obvious to some: Does the ban on “excessive fines” in the Bill of Rights apply to states?
The Eighth Amendment to the Constitution, which prohibits “cruel and unusual punishments,” also says “excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed.”
But last year, the Indiana Supreme Court upheld the state’s seizure of a $42,000 Land Rover from a man who made two small drug sales valued at under $400. It rejected his claim that this was “excessive” and ruled the Eighth Amendment did not protect him.
That decision ran into sharp skepticism Wednesday from the justices.
Justice Neil Gorsuch said the court had struggled in the 1940s over whether all parts of the Bill of Rights applied equally to states and localities — or were “incorporated” into the 14th Amendment, as the court said. But that fight, he said, was settled long ago.
“Here we are still litigating over incorporation today? Really?” Gorsuch said to Indiana state solicitor Thomas Fisher.
The state’s lawyer refused to back down and insisted a state’s seizure of private property was its business, not a question of federal law.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh agreed with Gorsuch. “Isn’t it too late in the day to argue a right is not incorporated?” he said, meaning it applies to the states as well as the federal government.
By the end of an hour, it was clear that the court would rule for Tyson Timbs, the Indiana man who lost his Land Rover, and hold that the Constitu- tion protected him from an excessive fine.
But it is not clear he will ultimately win. Chief Justice John Roberts said the court would probably send the case back to the Indiana courts to decide whether this forfeiture was indeed excessive and unjust.
Wednesday’s argument revived a question that has a long history before the high court and divided the justices during the middle decades of the 20th century.
The first 10 amendments, known as the Bill of Rights, were ratified in 1791 and begin with the words: “Congress shall make no law ...” The familiar rights listed include the freedom of speech and the press, the free exercise of religion, the right to bear arms, the right to a jury trial and the freedom from “unreasonable searches and seizures.”
But these protections for individuals did not go far. In the early 19th century, the court said these rights applied only to actions of the then-tiny federal government, not to states or local authorities, including police.
After the Civil War, the Reconstruction Congress adopted the 14th Amendment to protect individuals from their states. It said, “No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States, nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law.”
The first clause on “privileges or immunities” has meant surprisingly little, thanks to a peculiar 1873 ruling holding it did not provide “any additional protection” for individuals.
But the second clause became the most important in the Constitution. In a step-by-step process from the 1930s through the 1960s, the Supreme Court decided that nearly all the fundamental rights cited in the Bill of Rights were included or “incorporated” in the protection for “liberty” and “due process of law” in the 14th Amendment. But it has never specifically ruled on the “excessive fee” clause.
These days, most Americans would assume their constitutional rights are the same, whether they encounter a federal agent, a state official or a local police officer.
The appeal from Timbs has united groups across the ideological spectrum from the ACLU to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, all of them urging the court to clearly rule that all parts of the Eighth Amendment apply across the country.