An Abusive Government Practice Will Get Its Day in Court

By Judson Berger

Friday, July 254, 2026

 

Back in 2024, the Supreme Court handed governments a modest win on the practice of asset forfeiture (the civil variety) when it decided against requiring an extra hearing as part of the often-contested process. But as Dan McLaughlin wrote at the time, “the Court’s lineup may presage trouble” for such seizures in the future.

 

Indeed, the Court just decided to take a case in its next term that presents an opportunity for justices to rein in government confiscations.

 

In the dispute at hand, a conviction was obtained, unlike with so-called civil forfeitures that have drawn outrage over the years — but the punishment and crime appear wildly out of proportion. That mismatch is what the Court is being asked to consider. In 2012, Kenneth Jouppi, an Alaskan bush pilot, was found preparing to transport beer into a dry community (a passenger had the alcohol in her luggage; the pilot said he wasn’t aware of it). On top of filing a misdemeanor charge, the state sought to seize his $95,000 plane. Jouppi sued, claiming a violation of the Eighth Amendment’s excessive fines clause.

 

“The Excessive Fines Clause was built for cases like this,” his lawyers wrote. They argued that “a decision upholding the forfeiture of an airplane for a six-pack is a self-recommending candidate for review.”

 

A 2019 Court decision had already applied those protections against state forfeiture schemes but did not specify how to define “excessive.” Here, Jouppi’s attorneys want the Court to consider a defendant’s specific conduct, not just the underlying offense.

 

Jouppi’s case is one of many involving heavy-handed government takings. As Kamden Mulder reports, “In 2009, a South Carolina man’s RV was seized after police discovered four ounces of marijuana inside.” The Institute for Justice, which represents the Alaska pilot, has long brought attention to and been involved in similar cases, specifically civil forfeitures carried out without charges — ranging from the FBI’s seizure of family savings kept in safe-deposit boxes of a business that was raided in California, to Nevada cops’ seizure of a veteran’s life savings during a traffic stop, to border agents’ seizure of a man’s Ford F-250.

 

Setting aside the delicious Alaska-ness of the dispute that now has the Supreme Court’s attention, Dan writes that “it could turn out to be one of the big cases of the next term.”

 

The Court, after all, had already telegraphed that forfeitures were due for closer examination. As Dan noted regarding the 2024 decision, Justice Neil Gorsuch, joined by Justice Clarence Thomas, wrote in a concurring opinion at the time that law enforcement agencies have become “increasingly dependent” on the money raised, apparently influencing their actions.

 

Whether the forfeitures are the civil or criminal variety, governments that have developed a taste for aggressive and excessive confiscations should be worried. And that’s a good thing.