Timbs v. Indiana
586 U.S. ____ (2019) (2019)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Eighth Amendment's Excessive Fines Clause is an incorporated protection applicable to the States through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Facts:
- Tyson Timbs purchased a Land Rover SUV for approximately $42,000 using money from a life insurance policy following his father's death.
- Timbs later used this vehicle to transport heroin.
- He pleaded guilty in Indiana state court to dealing in a controlled substance and conspiracy to commit theft.
- The maximum monetary fine for his drug conviction was $10,000.
- Following his criminal conviction, the State of Indiana initiated a separate civil forfeiture proceeding to seize Timbs's Land Rover.
Procedural Posture:
- The State of Indiana brought a civil forfeiture action against Tyson Timbs in an Indiana trial court to seize his Land Rover.
- The trial court denied the forfeiture, finding it would be a grossly disproportionate and thus unconstitutional excessive fine.
- The State of Indiana, as appellant, appealed to the Court of Appeals of Indiana, an intermediate appellate court.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision in favor of Timbs.
- The State of Indiana, as appellant, appealed to the Indiana Supreme Court, the state's highest court.
- The Indiana Supreme Court reversed the lower courts, holding that the Eighth Amendment's Excessive Fines Clause does not apply to the states.
- Tyson Timbs, as petitioner, successfully petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is the Eighth Amendment's Excessive Fines Clause applicable to the States through the doctrine of incorporation under the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Ginsburg
Yes. The Eighth Amendment's Excessive Fines Clause is incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and is therefore applicable to the states. The Court reasoned that a Bill of Rights protection is incorporated if it is 'fundamental to our scheme of ordered liberty' or 'deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition.' The prohibition on excessive fines traces its lineage to the Magna Carta in 1215 and was included in the English Bill of Rights of 1689. This protection was considered fundamental by the founding generation and was present in nearly every state constitution at the time the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified. The Court rejected Indiana's argument that the inquiry should focus on the specific application to civil in rem forfeitures, clarifying that the incorporation test applies to the right itself, not each particular application.
Concurring - Justice Gorsuch
Agrees with the Court's conclusion. While faithfully applying precedent, Justice Gorsuch writes separately to note that, as an original matter, the appropriate constitutional vehicle for incorporating the Bill of Rights against the states is the Fourteenth Amendment's Privileges or Immunities Clause, rather than the Due Process Clause. However, he acknowledges that the choice of clause does not change the outcome in this case and that the Fourteenth Amendment unquestionably requires states to respect the freedom from excessive fines.
Concurring - Justice Thomas
Agrees with the Court's judgment but not its reasoning. Justice Thomas argues forcefully against using the 'legal fiction' of substantive due process for incorporation. He contends that the right to be free from excessive fines is one of the 'privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States' protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. He provides an extensive historical analysis, tracing the right from Magna Carta through English history, the American colonial period, and the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment, to demonstrate it was understood as a fundamental right of citizenship that the Privileges or Immunities Clause was meant to protect from state infringement.
Analysis:
This unanimous decision formally incorporates the Excessive Fines Clause, one of the last remaining provisions of the Bill of Rights to be applied to the states. The ruling confirms that states are bound by the same constitutional standards as the federal government when imposing fines, fees, and civil forfeitures. This precedent is significant as it opens the door for challenges to state and local government practices that are perceived as generating revenue through disproportionately high financial penalties, potentially impacting everything from traffic fines to civil asset forfeiture schemes.
Unlock the full brief for Timbs v. Indiana