Supreme Court Takes $95,000 Plane-Forfeiture Appeal Over 6-Pack of Beer
Updated
Updated · SCOTUSblog · Jul 20
Supreme Court Takes $95,000 Plane-Forfeiture Appeal Over 6-Pack of Beer
3 articles · Updated · SCOTUSblog · Jul 20
Summary
The justices agreed to review whether Alaska violated the Eighth Amendment by seizing 82-year-old Kenneth Jouppi’s $95,000 Cessna after beer was found on a flight headed to the dry village of Beaver.
Jouppi, convicted of misdemeanor alcohol importation, says the forfeiture was grossly disproportionate because the alcohol amounted to a six-pack in plain view and belonged to a passenger.
Alaska argues remote villages face acute alcohol-abuse problems and that planes are often the only access route, so aircraft used to import alcohol into dry communities can be forfeited.
A ruling, expected by next summer after arguments later this year or early next, could set a national limit on how state and local governments use asset forfeiture under the Excessive Fines Clause.
The case follows other recent forfeiture disputes, including a unanimous June decision letting a Michigan family keep challenging a county sale of its $194,000 home over a $76,008 tax debt.
When does a government’s power to seize property for minor crimes cross a constitutional line?
Should a community’s fight against addiction justify taking a man's entire livelihood?
Supreme Court Weighs $95,000 Plane Forfeiture Over Six-Pack: Jouppi v. Alaska and the Future of Excessive Fines
Overview
Kenneth John Jouppi, an 82-year-old pilot, flew a passenger carrying a six-pack of beer into Beaver, a dry Alaskan village, knowing about the alcohol. He was convicted of bootlegging, and Alaska seized his $95,000 airplane, arguing it was used in the crime. The Alaska Supreme Court upheld the forfeiture, deciding it was not grossly disproportional, using a broad view of the offense’s seriousness. Now, the U.S. Supreme Court is considering whether courts should judge such penalties based on the specific facts of the case or the general category of the crime, a decision that could reshape asset forfeiture laws nationwide.