The small village of Beaver, Alaska, banned alcohol in 2004. In 2012, a bush pilot flew a passenger and her groceries from Fairbanks to the village. However, state police conducting a routine inspection discovered beer hidden in the luggage. Ken Jouppi, the bush pilot, was charged for trying to bring in a six-pack of beer. In addition to a $1,500 fine, the pilot also lost his airplane as forfeit to the government for his illegal beer run. Mr. Jouppi challenged the seizure of his airplane (and livelihood as a bush pilot) in Joupppi v. Alaska, currently before the U.S. Supreme Court. NTUF’s Taxpayer Defense Center filed an amicus curiae (“friend of the court”) brief in support of Jouppi to call for robust protections against excessive fines.
Beyond a beer run in a bush plane, this case has practical implications for criminal and civil penalties, including tax penalties. The U.S. Constitution’s Eighth Amendment protects all citizens, stating that “Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.” Since 1998, in United States v. Bajakajian, the Supreme Court has required a two-step analysis for determining if a fine is “excessive.” First, courts should independently assess the gravity of the individual’s offense. Second, courts should determine whether the punishment is grossly disproportional to that offense. (In the 2019 case Timbs v. Indiana, the Supreme Court held for the first time that this fundamental right also applies to the states via the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.)
But the Alaska Supreme Court conflated these two steps, deferring to the legislature on weighing the gravity of the offense of having a six-pack in the cabin of a bush plane. The Alaska Legislature thought that some beer warranted seizure of a $95,000 airplane, and the state’s supreme court deferred to the determination. Worse, the Alaska Supreme Court focused on the harm from bootlegged alcohol in Alaska generally, rather than focusing on the particulars of the pilot’s conduct.
We write that the Eighth Amendment enshrines an individual right, and courts have historically focused on the individual’s conduct in evaluating fines. The United States inherited a long tradition of courts looking askew at ruinous fines, dating from the Magna Carta, to David Hume, and through the Fairfax Resolves. And a majority of the state constitutions at the Founding protected citizens from excessive fines. To remain true to this history, courts must remain guardians of the Excessive Fines Clause and cannot outsource their judgments to legislatures.
Furthermore, these harms go beyond Alaska, beer, or small aircraft. Civil penalties have their own threat of excessive fines, particularly in tax law. The Internal Revenue Code is replete with provisions that impose liability without regard to taxpayer fault, often with steep penalties attached even when the taxpayer was acting in good faith and trying to follow the law.
The Supreme Court’s continued review of home confiscation schemes under tax sales also highlights the extreme punitive nature hidden in tax law. For example, Geraldine Tyler accrued $2,300 in back taxes on her one bedroom condo in Minneapolis. By the time penalties and interest were added in over a couple of years, she owed $15,000 to Hennepin County, Minnesota. The County seized the condo and sold it. The Supreme Court held that Hennepin County owed a refund of the difference between what the condo sold for and the taxes due. Justices Neil Gorsuch and Ketanji Brown Jackson authored a concurrence together in Tyler, joining the Court’s opinion in full but adding their view that Minnesota’s scheme also violated the Eighth Amendment’s ban on excessive fines. This is the argument NTUF’s Taxpayer Defense Center made in our brief to the Court in Tyler. Additionally, last term the Pung family lost their $200,000 house for the sake of a $2,000 tax bill.
Excessive fines, including tax penalties, are a real threat to Americans and the Court’s decision in Jouppi can ease that tension. We urge the Supreme Court to reject the approach taken by lower courts to be overly deferential to the legislature and require a case-by-case analysis for protecting against excessive fines. Doing so is part of a long history of the judiciary protecting citizens from excessive fines.
The case is Jouppi v. Alaska, U.S. No. 25-246. Oral argument is scheduled for Tuesday, December 1, 2026.