Fourteen years ago, Ken Jouppi, who had operated a charter airplane business in Alaska since the 1970s, agreed to fly a passenger from Fairbanks to Beaver, one of the state's dry jurisdictions.
asserted
who → operate → jurisdictions
The passenger's luggage included 72 cans of Budweiser and Bud Light, which she planned to share with her husband on his birthday.
asserted
she → include → birthday
Although most of the beer was boxed, a six-pack "was packed only in a grocery bag and would have been in plain view to Jouppi as he was loading the airplane," the Alaska Supreme Court noted last year.
asserted
Court → box → airplane
State troopers discovered the beer before the plane took off, and Jouppi was convicted of a misdemeanor.
asserted
Jouppi → discover → misdemeanor
The trial court, which concluded that Jouppi had been "willfully blind" to the six-pack, sentenced him to three days in jail and a $1,500 fine.
asserted
Jouppi → conclude → jail
But state law mandated another punishment that was 63 times as severe: forfeiture of Jouppi's $95,000 airplane.
asserted
that → mandate → airplane
Although that penalty seemed grossly disproportionate, the Alaska Supreme Court ruled that it did not violate the Eighth Amendment's ban on excessive fines.
asserted
it → seem → fines
In July, responding to a petition filed by the Institute for Justice, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to review that decision.
asserted
Court → respond → decision
It will hear oral argument in Jouppi v. Alaska on December 1.
asserted
It → hear → December
In a brief supporting Jouppi's appeal that it filed last week, the Cato Institute argues that the Alaska Supreme Court erred by failing to consider the gravity of his conduct and the financial consequences of the forfeiture.
asserted
Court → support → forfeiture
Both of those factors, Cato attorney Matthew Cavedon says, have been central to the common-law understanding of excessive fines for eight centuries.
asserted
Cavedon → say → centuries
"The Eighth Amendment was designed to prevent this kind of abuse by limiting excessive fines," Cavedon writes.
asserted
Cavedon → design → fines
"Long before the United States was founded, the common law protected people from extreme monetary penalties.
asserted
law → found → penalties
But the Alaska Supreme Court's view is that challenges to excessive fines 'should rarely succeed.'
asserted
challenges → succeed → fines
This dismissive view led it to conclude that there is nothing excessive about the forfeiture of an airplane worth 'only 9.5 times the maximum fine'—and over 60 times the fine actually imposed.
asserted
view → lead → airplane
The decision below cannot be reconciled with this Court's precedent or the Excessive Fines Clause's original meaning.
asserted
decision → reconcile → precedent
In weighing the proportionality of the airplane forfeiture, the Alaska Supreme Court thought the relevant consideration was the harm caused by excessive drinking.
asserted
consideration → weigh → drinking
"Alcohol abuse in rural Alaska leads to increased crime; disorders, such as alcoholism; conditions, such as fetal alcohol spectrum disorder; and death, imposing substantial costs on public health and the administration of justice," Justice Jude Pate wrote in the majority opinion.
asserted
Pate → lead → opinion
"Within this context, it is clear that the illegal importation of even a six-pack of beer causes grave societal harm.
asserted
importation → cause → harm
That assessment defies logic: For all we know, consumption of those six cans would have caused no measurable problem at all, let alone "grave societal harm."
asserted
consumption → defy → problem
And in conflating Jouppi's actual conduct with a much broader phenomenon, Cavedon says, Pate and his colleagues ignored a principle that has long informed the concept of excessive fines.
asserted
that → conflate → fines
Back in 1215, the Magna Carta took aim at disproportionate financial penalties imposed by King John.
asserted
Carta → take → John
"For a trivial offence," it said, according to a translation from the National Archives, "a free man shall be fined only in proportion to the degree of his offence, and for a serious offence correspondingly, but not so heavily as to deprive him of his livelihood."
uncertain
man → say → livelihood
That promise "was not consistently enforced, and excessive fines were regularly imposed during the reign of the Stuart kings, who 'were criticized for using large fines to raise revenue,'" Cavedon notes.
asserted
Cavedon → enforce → revenue
"The English Bill of Rights of 1689 responded to this oppression," again condemning "excessive fines," along with "cruel and unusual punishments.
asserted
Bill → respond → punishments
As reflected in William Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England, judges "understood proportionality to involve an inquiry 'far broader than just that between the punishment and severity of the offense,'" Cavedon writes, citing a 2014 California Law Review article by UCLA law professor Beth Colgan.
asserted
Cavedon → reflect → Colgan
"Early American courts agreed, holding that fines should be proportioned 'to the offense committed, the situation, circumstances, and character of the offender.'
asserted
fines → agree → offender
Only ignoring this history allows courts to routinely impose excessive fines—as happened in this case.
asserted
courts → ignore → case
By focusing on 'grave societal harms' rather than individual culpability, Alaska endorsed a fine that is undoubtedly excessive by common law standards.
asserted
that → focus → standards
"
State constitutions reflected that tradition, and so did the Eighth Amendment, the language of which copied the Virginia Declaration of Rights.
asserted
language → reflect → Rights
In applying the latter provision, Cavedon notes, courts have asked "whether the punitive fine is proportional to the gravity of the person's actions" and, if so, "whether the punitive fine is proportional to the person's ability to pay it without depleting the ability to care for oneself or loved ones."
asserted
fine → apply → oneself
The Virginia legislature "ultimately codified this two-step approach," which Cavedon urges the Supreme Court to adopt.
asserted
Cavedon → codify → Court
The Supreme Court's 1998 decision in United States v. Bajakajian acknowledged the relevance of individual culpability.
asserted
States → acknowledge → culpability
In that case, Hosep Bajakajian was convicted of failing to report the cash he planned to carry on a flight from Los Angeles to Cyprus by way of Italy, and the penalty included forfeiture of the entire sum: $357,144.
asserted
penalty → convict → sum
That was an excessive fine, Justice Clarence Thomas concluded in the majority opinion.
asserted
Thomas → conclude → opinion
Bajakajian's offense "was unrelated to any other illegal activities," Thomas noted.
asserted
Thomas → note → activities
Rather, "the money was the proceeds of legal activity and was to be used to repay a lawful debt."
asserted
money → use → debt
The maximum penalty under federal sentencing guidelines was six months in jail and a $5,000 fine, which confirmed "a minimal level of culpability."
The harm Bajakajian caused "was also minimal," since it "affected only one party, the Government, and in a relatively minor way," Thomas said.
asserted
Thomas → confirm → way
"There was no fraud on the United States, and respondent caused no loss to the public fisc.
asserted
respondent → be → fisc
Had his crime gone undetected, the Government would have been deprived only of the information that $357,144 had left the country."
asserted
357,144 → go → country
…and 19 more, not listed.
The Aporia
