U.S. Supreme Court Rules Unanimously That States Cannot Impose Excessive Fines

by | Feb 26, 2019

U.S. Supreme Court Rules Unanimously That States Cannot Impose Excessive Fines

by | Feb 26, 2019

https://pixabay.com/illustrations/shakedown-robbery-theft-tax-money-1340048/

In an historic ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court this morning held that the Excessive Fines Clause of the Eighth Amendment protects Americans not just against the federal government, but against states and local authorities too. No matter which state you live in, every level of government must now abide by the federal Constitution’s guarantee that property owners will be safe from excessive fines and forfeitures. “[T]he historical and logical case for concluding that the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Excessive Fines Clause,” wrote Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg for the Court, “is overwhelming.”

Indiana resident Tyson Timbs is at the center of this legal fight. His road to the U.S. Supreme Court began shortly after his father died, when he received more than $70,000 in life-insurance proceeds and bought a new car. For years, Tyson had struggled with drug addiction; a painkiller prescription had escalated to heroin abuse. Soon after buying his new car, Tyson sold four grams of heroin to fund his addiction. The purchasers were undercover officers, and police arrested Tyson. They seized his car too.

Tyson pleaded guilty to one count of drug dealing, which led to house arrest, then probation, and $1,200 in related fees. Most importantly, the arrest was a wake-up call for Tyson. He got his life back on track, holding down a job and taking steps to battle his addiction.

Read the rest at ij.org.

Recent Articles

Recent

An Unpopular War Is Breaking the People Fighting It

An Unpopular War Is Breaking the People Fighting It

A sailor aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln sent a message home that his family passed to Stars and Stripes anonymously, fearing retaliation. "Our mental health and physical health is in danger. We need help." By the time that message surfaced, the Lincoln had been gone...

read more
Whose ‘NAP’ Anyway?

Whose ‘NAP’ Anyway?

A considerable portion of libertarian infighting seems to stem from the largely unrecognized fact that there are two different ways to interpret the non-aggression principle (NAP). On the surface, the NAP seems clear: aggression is wrong. But there is a deontological...

read more
Presidential Entitlement and the 1998 Bombing of Sudan

Presidential Entitlement and the 1998 Bombing of Sudan

Last week was the 28th anniversary of the U.S. government's bombing of a pharmaceutical factory in Sudan. Scott Horton, director of the Libertarian Institute, observed last week that that wanton assault by the Clinton administration “helped make a folk hero out of bin...

read more

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This