US Supreme Court Rules To Limit States’ Ability To Seize Property, Impose Fines

Via ZeroHedge

The US Supreme Court ruled unanimously on Wednesday that the Excessive Fines Clause in the 8th Amendment applies to state and local governments.

Announced in an opinion written by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg on her second day back on the bench following a December cancer surgery, the ruling limits states’ abilities to seize property and impose fines deemed excessive on citizens who break the law.

“For good reason, the protection against excessive fines has been a constant shield throughout Anglo-American history: Exorbitant tolls undermine other constitutional liberties,” wrote Ginsburg, as the court sided with Tyson Timbs of Marion Indiana, whose $42,000 Land Rover SUV was seized by the state following a guilty plea for selling $385 worth of heroin to an undercover detective.

Following a plea bargain, Timbs was sentenced to a year of home detention followed by five years of probation, as well as $1,200 in fees.

Excessive fines can be used, for example, to retaliate against or chill the speech of political enemies . . . Even absent a political motive, fines may be employed in a measure out of accord with the penal goals of retribution and deterrence.

Timbs drew wide support from civil liberties organizations, according to the Washington Post.

Other USSC Justices were highly critical of property seizures and fines, with Justice Clarence Thomas suggesting that civil forfeitures had become “widespread and highly profitable.”

“This system — where police can seize property with limited judicial oversight and retain it for their own use — has led to egregious and well-chronicled abuses,” Thomas wrote, referring to reporting by The Washington Post and the New Yorker.

At oral argument, Timbs’s lawyer said the case was a simple matter of “constitutional housekeeping.” –Washington Post

The Constitution’s Bill of Rights limits the actions of the federal government – however it has been increasingly applied by the Supreme Court to local governments, particularly under the due-process clause of the 14th Amendment, notes the Post‘s Robert Barnes.

In 2010, for instance, the court held that the Second Amendment applied to state and local government laws on gun control.

The Eighth Amendment states: “Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.” Two of those commands — regarding bail and cruel and unusual punishments — have been deemed to apply to state and local governments. But until now, the ban on excessive fines had not been. –Washington Post

In the Timbs case, the Indiana Supreme Court noted while overturning a lower court’s ruling that the state’s actions against Timbs were excessive.

In Wednesday’s USSC ruling, Ginsburg’s opinion clarifies that the clause applies – and is “incorporated” under the 14th Amendment’s Due Process Clause. Justices Gorsuch and Thomas agreed with the outcome, however they noted that they would have relied on a different part of the 14th Amendment.

-----------------------------------------------------
It is my sincere desire to provide readers of this site with the best unbiased information available, and a forum where it can be discussed openly, as our Founders intended. But it is not easy nor inexpensive to do so, especially when those who wish to prevent us from making the truth known, attack us without mercy on all fronts on a daily basis. So each time you visit the site, I would ask that you consider the value that you receive and have received from The Burning Platform and the community of which you are a vital part. I can't do it all alone, and I need your help and support to keep it alive. Please consider contributing an amount commensurate to the value that you receive from this site and community, or even by becoming a sustaining supporter through periodic contributions. [Burning Platform LLC - PO Box 1520 Kulpsville, PA 19443] or Paypal

-----------------------------------------------------
To donate via Stripe, click here.
-----------------------------------------------------
Use promo code ILMF2, and save up to 66% on all MyPillow purchases. (The Burning Platform benefits when you use this promo code.)
Click to visit the TBP Store for Great TBP Merchandise
As an Amazon Associate I Earn from Qualifying Purchases
Subscribe
Notify of
guest
15 Comments
Ned
Ned
February 21, 2019 6:41 am

Good ruling. It’s about time the courts moved against Grand Theft Amerika.

22winmag - The South was Right!
22winmag - The South was Right!
  Ned
February 21, 2019 8:41 am

Ummmmm…. if the ruling doesn’t limit THE FEDCOATS use of asset seizure, then it’s a fucking trap!

Iska Waran
Iska Waran
  22winmag - The South was Right!
February 21, 2019 11:43 am

Its logic would apply to the Feds, too.

TC
TC
February 21, 2019 9:12 am

Probably just made this decision to prevent any real action against the Sackler family.

22winmag - The South was Right!
22winmag - The South was Right!
  TC
February 21, 2019 9:35 am

PURE FUCKING GENIUS

The feds are “pre-bombing” states rights again. It’s worse than 1861 for fuck sake.

Instead of Miles W. Mathis, I may have to linking to some of your comments when the people need a dose of reality.

Donkey Balls
Donkey Balls
February 21, 2019 9:26 am

Why not put a $$ figure on what is and what isn’t excessive? The ruling is half good.

robert
robert
  Donkey Balls
February 21, 2019 9:33 am

$0 would be about right.

Ned
Ned
February 21, 2019 10:25 am
TampaRed
TampaRed
February 21, 2019 11:04 am

9-0 sends a decisive statement–
states are becoming so aggressive it’s incredible–
in oklahoma and possibly other places,cops are carrying portable card readers so that they can empty bank accounts & giftcards–

Iska Waran
Iska Waran
  TampaRed
February 21, 2019 11:47 am

I’m surprised that Stephanie Breyer signed onto a decision that references Aglo-American history and law. Maybe Ginsburg (or her ghost writers) slipped in some reference to Franco history just to assuage Breyer.

TampaRed
TampaRed
February 21, 2019 11:13 am

there’s another case that is going to very important–
for the 2020 census,trump is trying to limit the count to people who are here legally–
if the scotus upholds trump’s position,the huge blue cities/states will lose large #s of house members that will be apportioned to rural,more conservative areas & other states & also huge amounts of federal $–
short article from armstrong economics,which is also where i saw the info about oklahoma’s forfeiture schemes–

Supreme Court will Take Up the Census Argument for 2020

Iska Waran
Iska Waran
  TampaRed
February 21, 2019 11:50 am

I believe the Supreme Court case about the census is only about whether the census can ask citizenship status. If republicans re-take the House and legislate that congressional seats should be apportioned only based upon the number of citizens within each state, I think that would be an entirely new lawsuit/case – which would undoubtedly head to SCOTUS.