Austin v. United States
509 U.S. 602 (1993)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Eighth Amendment's Excessive Fines Clause applies to in rem civil forfeiture proceedings where the forfeiture functions, in whole or in part, as a punishment. Forfeitures under federal drug statutes 21 U.S.C. §§ 881(a)(4) and (a)(7) are punitive and are therefore subject to the constitutional limitation against excessive fines.
Facts:
- On June 13, 1990, Richard Lyle Austin met Keith Engebretson at Austin's auto body shop and agreed to sell him cocaine.
- Austin then went from his shop to his mobile home to retrieve the drugs.
- Austin returned to his body shop and sold two grams of cocaine to Engebretson.
- The following day, state authorities executed a search warrant on Austin's body shop and mobile home.
- During the search, authorities discovered small amounts of marijuana and cocaine, a .22 caliber revolver, drug paraphernalia, and approximately $4,700 in cash.
Procedural Posture:
- After Richard Lyle Austin pleaded guilty to a state drug charge, the United States filed an in rem civil action in the U.S. District Court for the District of South Dakota, seeking forfeiture of his mobile home and auto body shop.
- Austin argued in opposition to the government's summary judgment motion that the forfeiture would violate the Eighth Amendment's Excessive Fines Clause.
- The District Court rejected Austin's constitutional argument and entered summary judgment for the United States.
- Austin appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.
- The Eighth Circuit affirmed the District Court's judgment, holding it was constrained by precedent from applying Eighth Amendment proportionality review to in rem civil forfeitures.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve a conflict among the circuit courts.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the Excessive Fines Clause of the Eighth Amendment apply to civil in rem forfeitures of property under 21 U.S.C. §§ 881(a)(4) and (a)(7)?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Blackmun
Yes, the Excessive Fines Clause of the Eighth Amendment applies to civil in rem forfeitures of property under these statutes. The determination of whether a government sanction is subject to the Clause depends not on whether the proceeding is labeled civil or criminal, but on whether the sanction constitutes punishment. A forfeiture constitutes punishment if it cannot be explained as serving solely a remedial purpose. Historically, forfeiture has always been understood at least partially as punishment. The specific statutes at issue here are punitive because they include an 'innocent owner' defense focusing on culpability, are tied directly to criminal conduct, and their legislative history confirms a deterrent and punitive intent. Because these forfeitures are not purely remedial—as the property is not contraband and its value has no correlation to government costs—they are subject to the limitations of the Excessive Fines Clause.
Concurring - Justice Scalia
Yes, this forfeiture is a fine subject to the Eighth Amendment. The term 'fine' was historically understood to include forfeitures, and this specific forfeiture is a 'payment to a sovereign as punishment for some offense.' The majority's extensive historical analysis to prove that all in rem forfeitures are based on owner culpability is unnecessary and questionable. It is sufficient that these specific statutes require some owner culpability, making them punitive. For determining excessiveness on remand, the test should not be the value of the property versus the offense, but rather an 'instrumentality' test: whether the property has a close enough relationship to the offense to be considered 'guilty' and forfeitable.
Concurring - Justice Kennedy
Yes, the Excessive Fines Clause applies in this case. I agree with Justice Scalia that the majority's effort to create a unified theory that all historical in rem forfeitures were based on personal punishment is unnecessary and historically doubtful. Some historical forfeitures may have been purely remedial or jurisdictional. However, for the specific drug forfeiture statutes at issue in this case, the punitive purpose is clear, and therefore the Eighth Amendment's protections apply. I would reserve the broader question of whether in rem forfeitures always constitute punishment for a future case.
Analysis:
This decision significantly expanded the protections of the Eighth Amendment's Excessive Fines Clause by applying it to civil asset forfeitures, a major tool in modern law enforcement. By establishing that a forfeiture is a 'fine' if it is even partially punitive, the Court subjected these civil actions to constitutional scrutiny for proportionality. This holding empowered property owners to challenge the government's seizure of assets as 'excessive' relative to the underlying crime. It forced lower courts to develop standards for excessiveness in forfeiture cases, potentially limiting the government's ability to seize high-value property only tangentially related to a criminal offense.
Unlock the full brief for Austin v. United States