SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Supreme Court curbs power of government to impose heavy fines and seize property
In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court on Wednesday ruled to drastically curb the powers that states and cities have to levy fines and seize property, marking the first time the court has applied the Constitution's ban on excessive fines at the state level.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who returned to the court for the first time in almost two months after undergoing surgery for lung cancer, wrote the majority opinion in the case involving an Indiana man who had his Land Rover seized after he was arrested for selling $385 of heroin.
"Protection against excessive fines has been a constant shield throughout Anglo-American history for good reason: Such fines undermine other liberties," Ginsburg wrote. "They can be used, e.g., to retaliate against or chill the speech of political enemies. They can also be employed, not in service of penal purposes, but as a source of revenue."
Also at National Review, SCOTUSblog, and NPR.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by AthanasiusKircher on Thursday February 21 2019, @05:11AM (1 child)
I should note one good thing that came out of this ruling -- firmly stamping the Eighth Amendment as a potential concern in civil forfeiture cases at the state level may make it easier in some states to bring cases. (In many states, the legal process for challenging civil asset forfeiture is rather labyrinthine, so this may simplify the grounds for some actions.)
But as for substantially reining in police practices? I'll believe it when I see it.
Important context I forgot to mention: Realize that Indiana actually has an excessive fines clause in its own state constitution [indiana.edu] too, and yet the Indiana Supreme Court overturned lower courts here and said it was okay to take this property. Realize that ruling was wacko because it basically argued that a state constitution clause that mirrored the Eighth Amendment wasn't enough to create a concern for taking property in this case, even with SCOTUS precedent for 25 years that says the Eighth Amendment language applies to civil forfeiture cases.
So, a state supreme court when confronted by an excessive fines clause in its own state constitution wasn't bothered by civil forfeiture here. Are we really to think that magically saying a federal excessive fines clause applies is going to make a huge difference in practice?
(Score: 2) by cubancigar11 on Thursday February 21 2019, @08:05PM
No, and that is an important thing you have said that everyone should read. All law is open to interpretation, and at every juncture the courts have historically protected the police.
Courts are by nature mighty conservative, and contradictory to themselves, consistent only in their lack of interest in reigning the power of state.