fbpx

Eighth Amendment and Excessive Fines

Applicability of the Eighth Amendment to States

The Eighth Amendment originally only applied to the federal government. States had more leeway until the 14th Amendment came along, saying states can't mess with citizens' privileges without due process.

In 2015, Indiana tried to take Timbs' $42,000 Land Rover after he sold some heroin. Timbs argued this was an excessive fine. The Supreme Court agreed, with Justice Ginsburg pointing to the 14th Amendment to say states must follow rules on excessive fines too.

This ruling shook up states' practices of using fines and forfeitures to pull in money. The Supreme Court is now keeping an eye on ensuring no one's wallet takes an unfair hit.

Justice Thomas had his own take, leaning on the "privileges or immunities" clause instead of due process. Justice Gorsuch agreed with Thomas but stuck with the majority's reasoning.

This decision means states can't fine people into oblivion over minor offenses. It's impacting real folks, as many towns and cities often rely on hefty fines. The ruling forces a rethink on local and state finance structures.

Timbs v. Indiana essentially said the Eighth Amendment has teeth, and local and state governments need to be ready. They can't just slap folks with sky-high fines or randomly seize assets anymore.

A Land Rover SUV next to a judge's gavel, symbolizing the Timbs v. Indiana case

Historical Context and Interpretation

The idea behind the Eighth Amendment traces back to the English Bill of Rights in 1689, which declared against excessive bail, fines, and cruel punishments. This came after English kings had been using outrageous fines to crush enemies or fill the royal coffers.

In 1776, Virginia's Declaration of Rights included a similar clause about excessive fines. This influenced the U.S. Bill of Rights. During the Constitution's creation, there was debate about including a Bill of Rights. Some, like Patrick Henry, worried about giving the new federal government unchecked power in punishments.

"The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government." – Patrick Henry

The Eighth Amendment arrived in 1791, aiming to limit government excesses, especially on punishments and fines. The Founders were setting boundaries based on lessons from history, knowing the dangers of unchecked governmental powers.

Modern court cases referencing the Eighth Amendment, like Timbs v. Indiana, are echoing these centuries-old principles. They're reminding states and local governments that they can't ruin lives with excessive fines and forfeitures.

The Eighth Amendment continues to act as a guardian against overreach, protecting citizens from white-collar to working-class. As originalists, we must respect the original intent behind this Amendment, keeping governmental power in check.

Key Supreme Court Cases

The principle of proportionality is key in Eighth Amendment cases. It means the punishment must fit the crime.

United States v. Bajakajian put this principle front and center. Bajakajian tried to sneak out $357,144 without declaring it. The government wanted to take all the money, but the Supreme Court said this was "grossly disproportionate" to the offense. They looked at Bajakajian's background and the lack of harm caused. This established that the government must show proportionality in fines.

Timbs v. Indiana reinforced this principle for states. The Court said states, like the federal government, must respect proportionality. Timbs' Land Rover, worth more than allowed fines, couldn't be seized for his offense.

Key Takeaways:

  • Criminal and civil forfeitures can't be excessive
  • Governments are prevented from financially ruining individuals over minor infractions
  • Punitive measures should connect to the actual harm or illegal benefit from a crime

The Court consistently reminds that excessive fines are off-limits, whether you're in government or just living your life. These rulings serve as barriers against governmental overreach, maintaining the balance our Founders envisioned.

Contemporary Perspectives and Debates

Current debates on the Excessive Fines Clause focus on disproportionate fines against individuals. Some local governments still act like they can take everything you own for minor offenses.

The $464 million judgment against former President Trump for alleged civil fraud in New York is being called excessive and unconstitutional by his team. It's bringing the Eighth Amendment into the spotlight.

There's tension between evolving societal standards and originalism:

  • Progressives: Argue for "evolving standards of decency," saying laws should reflect softer views on punishment.
  • Originalists: Argue the Constitution isn't meant to change with modern whims.

The Timbs v. Indiana ruling reaffirmed originalism, reminding states they can't sidestep the Excessive Fines Clause. The Trump situation shows how these principles apply to everyone, regardless of political standing.

Questions arise about political misuse of fines. When state attorneys like Letitia James aim to seize Trump's assets, it raises concerns about law enforcement versus political vendettas.

The Eighth Amendment's Excessive Fines Clause remains a relevant shield against governmental abuse. It's not about clinging to old ideals, but upholding protective barriers meant to stand the test of time.

Scales of justice balancing a stack of money and a gavel
  1. Timbs v. Indiana, 586 U.S. ___ (2019)
  2. United States v. Bajakajian, 524 U.S. 321 (1998)
  3. English Bill of Rights 1689
  4. Virginia Declaration of Rights 1776
  5. U.S. Constitution, Eighth Amendment