SCOTUS says constitutional protection against excessive fines applies to state action

[Belsnickel]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/supreme-court-says-constitutional-protection-against-excessive-fines-applies-to-state-actions/2019/02/20/204ce0d4-3522-11e9-af5b-b51b7ff322e9_story.html?utm_term=.8bd8de47e74a

Quote:The Supreme Court ruled unanimously Wednesday that the Constitution’s prohibition on excessive fines applies to state and local governments, limiting their abilities to impose fines and seize property.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, on just her second day back on the bench after undergoing cancer surgery in December, announced the decision for the court, saying that the Eighth Amendment’s Excessive Fines Clause protects against government retribution.

“For good reason, the protection against excessive fines has been a constant shield throughout Anglo-American history: Exorbitant tolls undermine other constitutional liberties,” Ginsburg wrote. “Excessive fines can be used, for example, to retaliate against or chill the speech of political enemies. . . . Even absent a political motive, fines may be employed in a measure out of accord with the penal goals of retribution and deterrence.”

The court ruled in favor of Tyson Timbs of Marion, Ind., who had his $42,000 Land Rover seized after he was arrested for selling a couple hundred dollars’ worth of heroin.

He drew wide support from civil liberties organizations who want to limit civil forfeitures, which they say empower localities and law enforcement to seize property of someone suspected of a crime as a revenue stream.

Some justices, too, had become worried about the state and local efforts.

Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in a recent opinion that civil forfeitures have “become widespread and highly profitable.”

“This system — where police can seize property with limited judicial oversight and retain it for their own use — has led to egregious and well-chronicled abuses,” Thomas wrote, referring to reporting by The Washington Post and the New Yorker.

At oral argument, Timbs’s lawyer said the case was a simple matter of “constitutional housekeeping.”

The Constitution’s Bill of Rights protects against actions of the federal government. But the Supreme Court over time has applied it to state and local governments under the due-process clause of the 14th Amendment. In 2010, for instance, the court held that the Second Amendment applied to state and local government laws on gun control.

The Eighth Amendment states: “Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.” Two of those commands — regarding bail and cruel and unusual punishments — have been deemed to apply to state and local governments. But until now, the ban on excessive fines had not been.

And the Indiana Supreme Court noted that when overturning a lower court’s ruling that the actions taken against Timbs were excessive.

Ginsburg’s opinion makes clear that the clause applies, and that it is “incorporated” under the 14th Amendment’s due process Clause. Justices Thomas and Neil M. Gorsuch agreed with the outcome, but said they would have relied on a different part of the 14th Amendment.

The case is Timbs v. Indiana.

Last year was the 150th anniversary of the 14th Amendment, which was written to ensure that individuals were protected from state (and local) governments in the same manner they are the federal. Thanks to selective incorporation, it has taken this long for people to be protected by the 8th when it comes to lower-level governments.

[GMDino]

(02-20-2019, 02:46 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/supreme-court-says-constitutional-protection-against-excessive-fines-applies-to-state-actions/2019/02/20/204ce0d4-3522-11e9-af5b-b51b7ff322e9_story.html?utm_term=.8bd8de47e74a


Last year was the 150th anniversary of the 14th Amendment, which was written to ensure that individuals were protected from state (and local) governments in the same manner they are the federal. Thanks to selective incorporation, it has taken this long for people to be protected by the 8th when it comes to lower-level governments.

You just beat me to it!

I think this is a great thing. 

It also leads into discussions I've had about how once a person is "in the system" the system has a way of keeping you there...usually by financial means.

Of course now they (elected officials) will have to try and find new ways to raise fess because they are afraid to raise taxes to pay for services and to balance their budget.

[Au165]

It'll be interesting to see how this impacts budgets of smaller policing agencies. A lot of them have historically relied on these things to fund new equipment.

[*michaelsean*]

Sounds good to me. Unanimous decisions on cases like this hammer it home nicely.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(02-20-2019, 02:46 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/supreme-court-says-constitutional-protection-against-excessive-fines-applies-to-state-actions/2019/02/20/204ce0d4-3522-11e9-af5b-b51b7ff322e9_story.html?utm_term=.8bd8de47e74a


Last year was the 150th anniversary of the 14th Amendment, which was written to ensure that individuals were protected from state (and local) governments in the same manner they are the federal. Thanks to selective incorporation, it has taken this long for people to be protected by the 8th when it comes to lower-level governments.

An excellent decision.  As stated below, it's always great to see a unanimous SCOTUS ruling.

(02-20-2019, 02:47 PM)GMDino Wrote: You just beat me to it!

I think this is a great thing. 

It also leads into discussions I've had about how once a person is "in the system" the system has a way of keeping you there...usually by financial means.

Of course now they (elected officials) will have to try and find new ways to raise fess because they are afraid to raise taxes to pay for services and to balance their budget.

This varies heavily by state.  You are absolutely correct that this means local officials will have to raise revenue by other means.

(02-20-2019, 03:19 PM)Au165 Wrote: It'll be interesting to see how this impacts budgets of smaller policing agencies. A lot of them have historically relied on these things to fund new equipment.

As GM stated above, they'll likely have to raise taxes, which is always popular.

(02-20-2019, 03:24 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Sounds good to me.  Unanimous decisions on cases like this hammer it home nicely.

Agreed!

[Nebuchadnezzar]

Does this affect RICO?
Is the RICO Act now dead?

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

It will be interesting to see how this part of Ginsberg's decision;

Quote:“For good reason, the protection against excessive fines has been a constant shield throughout Anglo-American history: Exorbitant tolls undermine other constitutional liberties,” Ginsburg wrote. “Excessive fines can be used, for example, to retaliate against or chill the speech of political enemies. . . . Even absent a political motive, fines may be employed in a measure out of accord with the penal goals of retribution and deterrence.”

is used in suits brought by the NRA against, for example, the state of New York.
https://www.cnn.com/2018/08/04/us/nra-new-york-lawsuit/index.html

Quote:The lawsuit, when it was originally filed in the US District Court for Northern New York, came days after the Department of Financial Services fined several insurance companies hundreds of thousands of dollars for participating in an NRA-backed liability insurance program for gun owners.

The state also secured agreements from those companies not to offer such insurance again.

Seems to me like a clear case of judicial precedent was set today to soundly defeat this blatant abuse of governmental power.

Of further interest is how this could possibly affect laws like this;

https://www.newsweek.com/los-angeles-passes-law-new-businesses-disclose-any-ties-nra-1329421

Is blacklisting a business because of NRA ties the same as fining them?  A legal argument could easily be made that depriving someone of their livelihood because of political ties has the same deleterious effect.

[*michaelsean*]

(02-20-2019, 04:40 PM)Nebuchadnezzar Wrote: Does this affect RICO?
Is the RICO Act now dead?

RICO is federal, and pretty much responsible for taking down the mob.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(02-20-2019, 04:40 PM)Nebuchadnezzar Wrote: Does this affect RICO?
Is the RICO Act now dead?

RICO applies when criminal activity takes you across state lines.  It literally has nothing to do with this case.

[*bfine32*]

(02-20-2019, 07:26 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: RICO applies when criminal activity takes you across state lines.  It literally has nothing to do with this case.

You're half right.

It has nothing to do with this case, but........




This is Rico:

[fredtoast]

(02-20-2019, 04:40 PM)Nebuchadnezzar Wrote: Does this affect RICO?
Is the RICO Act now dead?

RICO applies to a lot more than just enterprises that cross state lines, and there are substantial seizure powers involved.  The seizure and cost bond elements were included in RICO because many types of "racketeering" involved actions against "shell corporations". There is a civil damages part to RICO and this prevents the owners of these shell corporations from absconding with the assets leaving a judgement against a corporation with no value.

RICO also allows for "treble damages" as part of the civil section.  These types of laws are not considered unconstitutional.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(02-20-2019, 07:56 PM)fredtoast Wrote: RICO applies to a lot more than just enterprises that cross state lines, and there are substantial seizure powers involved.  The seizure and cost bond elements were included in RICO because many types of "racketeering" involved actions against "shell corporations". There is a civil damages part to RICO and this prevents the owners of these shell corporations from absconding with the assets leaving a judgement against a corporation with no value.

RICO also allows for "treble damages" as part of the civil section.  These types of laws are not considered unconstitutional.

Thank you, Fred, for expanding on my very basic explanation of the law.  Asset seizure related to RICO, as you say, is not a fine and would not be subject to this ruling.  There is an enormous difference between a fine incurred for an illegal act and the money generated by an illegal act. 

[fredtoast]

And RICO is a federal law so, as said before, it has nothing to do with this decision on state laws.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(02-20-2019, 07:42 PM)bfine32 Wrote: You're half right.

It has nothing to do with this case, but........




This is Rico:

I'd be sitting in a hot tub... with my soul mate.

[NATI BENGALS]

Does this have anything to do with corporate fines?

[Stonyhands]

I wonder if this will have any effects on cases like this one...

http://www.kxxv.com/story/39859691/alaskan-father-and-son-sentenced-for-killing-a-bear-and-her-shrieking-cubs

[BmorePat87]

Good shit