On July 20, 2026, the United States Supreme Court agreed to hear a case that will decide how courts determine whether a fine or forfeiture is unconstitutionally excessive.  The case, Jouppi v. Alaska, arises from Alaska’s effort to forfeit a $95,000 airplane after its owner was convicted of a misdemeanor involving the transportation of a six-pack of Budweiser beer.

A Plane for Some Beer?

Ken Jouppi owned a 1969 Cessna and operated a small company that provided air transportation in Alaska, where small aircraft are a common means of travel between communities that are not readily accessible by road.  Alaska law permits certain communities to prohibit the importation of alcohol.  On April 3, 2012, Jouppi was preparing to fly a repeat passenger to one of those communities.  The passenger was carrying three cases of beer in her luggage for her husband, who worked in the village.  Jouppi maintained that he did not know the beer was there.  Before the plane departed, Alaska State Troopers searched the passenger’s belongings and discovered it.  The State contended that at least one six-pack of Budweiser was visible in the passenger’s shopping bag.  The Alaska courts analyzed the forfeiture on the premise that Jouppi’s knowledge extended only to that six-pack.

The passenger pleaded guilty.  Jouppi, on the other hand, went to trial and was convicted of a misdemeanor.  He was a first-time offender and received three days in jail and a $1,500 fine.  His company was also fined $1,500.

The State of Alaska, not satisfied with the fines, sought to forfeit the plane, as Alaska law requires for any aircraft used to import alcohol into a dry community.  The dispute over the plane proceeded through the Alaska courts for more than a decade, with Jouppi arguing, among other things, that forfeiture of an airplane worth approximately $95,000 is an excessive punishment for the conduct underlying his misdemeanor conviction.

The Alaska Supreme Court ultimately disagreed, finding that forfeiting the plane for a six pack of Budweiser was not excessive.   The court assessed the gravity of the offense in general terms, reasoning that the illegal importation of even a six-pack causes grave societal harm in rural Alaska and that the legislature had determined that such harm warrants forfeiture of the aircraft.  Noting also that the plane’s value was nine and a half times the $10,000 maximum fine, the court held that the forfeiture was not “grossly disproportional.”   Jouppi filed a petition for a writ of certiorari with the United States Supreme Court which, on July 20, 2026, granted the petition, agreeing to take up the matter.

The Constitutional Question: Excessive Fines

While the facts of this case are no doubt unusual, the constitutional question it raises is considerably broader.  The Eighth Amendment provides that “[e]xcessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.”  Courts have long struggled with how to determine when a monetary penalty or forfeiture becomes excessive, and the federal circuits and state courts have not applied the inquiry uniformly.

Most federal courts of appeals, including the Ninth Circuit, place substantial weight on the defendant’s actual conduct and culpability.  Other courts, such as the Eleventh Circuit, apply a more general inquiry into the seriousness of the statutory offense and the penalties the legislature has authorized.

The Supreme Court’s principal decision addressing proportionality under the Excessive Fines Clause is United States v. Bajakajian, 524 U.S. 321 (1998).  There, the Court stated that “[t]he touchstone of the constitutional inquiry under the Excessive Fines Clause is the principle of proportionality.”  Id. at 334.  Bajakajian involved a federal reporting requirement for individuals transporting more than $10,000 out of the country.  The defendant attempted to leave the United States with $357,144 without reporting the money, and the government sought forfeiture of the entire amount.  The Supreme Court held that the forfeiture would be “grossly disproportional to the gravity of his offense.”  Id. at 339-40.  Bajakajian established the governing principle, but it left considerable room for disagreement over how that principle should be applied.

How This May Impact Both Individuals and Businesses

While very few people fly planes in Alaska, and fewer still with beer, the decision in Jouppi could have far reaching implications.  Fines and forfeitures are common features of criminal, civil, and administrative enforcement.  Individuals and businesses regularly find themselves on the other end of a criminal complaint or an administrative enforcement proceeding carrying fines or forfeiture.  In some cases, the monetary consequence of an enforcement action may substantially exceed any other penalty imposed.

Jouppi presents an opportunity for the Supreme Court to resolve the constitutional question of how closely the punishment must correspond to the actual conduct of the person or company before the court.  Requiring courts to consider the seriousness of the conduct actually committed would likely result in fairer and more uniform monetary punishments nationwide.