U.S. Supreme Court Agrees to Hear Eighth Amendment Case Supported by Smith Anderson Amicus Brief

Smith Anderson attorneys Hunter Bruton and John Gibbons prepared an amicus brief urging the Court to grant review.

The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear an appeal from the Alaska Supreme Court on a case that could clarify how courts determine whether government fines and forfeitures are unconstitutionally "excessive" under the Eighth Amendment’s Excessive Fines Clause. SCOTUS hears very few cases each term, making its decision to hear Jouppi v. Alaska noteworthy in itself.

Smith Anderson attorneys Hunter Bruton and John Gibbons represented UCLA School of Law Professor Beth A. Colgan, one of the nation’s leading scholars on the history of the Eighth Amendment. They authored the amicus brief, a filing from a party not directly involved in the case that offers the court additional legal or factual perspective, on Professor Colgan’s behalf, urging the Supreme Court to grant review.

At the center of the case is whether courts evaluating an excessive-fines challenge should focus on the specific conduct, culpability, and harm associated with an individual offense, or whether they may instead place greater weight on the broader societal problems and issues the underlying law was intended to address.

The Court’s ruling could have implications well beyond the facts of the case. Businesses and individuals who interact with government regulators may face administrative fines, civil penalties, asset forfeitures, and other government-imposed financial sanctions. The decision could influence how courts evaluate those penalties when they are challenged as constitutionally excessive.

The case arose after Alaska sought forfeiture of Kenneth Jouppi’s airplane after it was used to transport a passenger carrying a six-pack of beer into a community that restricts alcohol. In reviewing Jouppi’s constitutional challenge, the Alaska Supreme Court considered the wider effects of alcohol abuse in rural Alaska.

The brief argues that the court’s approach departed from the history and traditions underlying the Excessive Fines Clause. Drawing on authorities from Magna Carta through early American case law, the brief explains that courts considering an as-applied challenge traditionally examined the circumstances of the individual offense, including the defendant’s culpability, the harm caused, the number of offenses, and whether the conduct was connected to broader criminal activity.

The issue is particularly significant because the Supreme Court only recently held, in its 2019 decision in Timbs v. Indiana, that the Excessive Fines Clause applies to state and local governments. Courts have since continued to develop the proper framework for applying that constitutional protection.

Through its representation of Professor Colgan, Smith Anderson contributed historical and constitutional analysis to a case that could shape the courts’ approach to evaluating government-imposed fines and forfeitures nationwide.

Read more about the case and the Supreme Court’s decision to grant review on SCOTUSblog.