When Tyson Timbs had his $42,000 Land Rover seized through civil asset forfeiture by the state of Indiana for a crime with a maximum fine of $10,000, he claimed that this constituted a violation of the Eighth Amendment’s excessive fines clause. However, the Supreme Court has not incorporated this clause under the Fourteenth Amendment to apply to the states.

Should states be prohibited from using civil asset forfeiture to impose “excessive” fines? Vikrant Reddy of the Charles Koch Institute discusses the incorporation doctrine and civil asset forfeiture in Timbs v. Indiana. Oral argument is November 28, 2018.

* * * * * * * * * * 

As always, the Federalist Society takes no particular legal or public policy positions. All opinions expressed are those of the speaker.

This episode of SCOTUSbrief is brought to you by the Federalist Society's Criminal Law & Procedure Practice Group. Learn more and join the practice group at https://fedsoc.org/criminallaw

Learn more about Vikrant Reddy:

Follow Vikrant Reddy on Twitter @vpreddy


* * * * * * * * * * 

Differing Views:

The New York Times: “He Sold Drugs for $225. Indiana Took His $42,000 Land Rover.”

The Yale Law Journal: “The Constitutionality of Civil Forfeiture”

University of Richmond Law Review: “The Concept of Incorporation”

The Federalist Society: “Reconstructing First Principles: The Fourteenth Amendment and the Constitution”

SCOTUSblog: “Argument preview: Justices to consider whether Eighth Amendment ban on ‘excessive fines’ applies to the states”