News / FJP Releases
FJP Urges Supreme Court to Enforce Eighth Amendment Protections Against Excessive Property Forfeitures
Brief argues $95,000 airplane forfeiture over a six-pack of beer shows why courts must meaningfully enforce the Constitution’s protection against excessive fines.
September 10, 2026 (Washington, D.C.) — Fair and Just Prosecution (FJP) filed an amicus brief in Jouppi v. Alaska, urging the U.S. Supreme Court to meaningfully enforce the Eighth Amendment’s Excessive Fines Clause by requiring courts to ensure that fines enforced through property forfeitures are proportionate to a person’s actual conduct and culpability.
The case began with a six-pack of beer. In 2012, a passenger aboard Douglas Jouppi’s airplane attempted to bring it into a dry Alaska village, but the plane never even left the ground. Mr. Jouppi was convicted of a misdemeanor and given the minimum sentence allowable. But another consequence was far more significant: under a mandatory forfeiture statute, Alaska took possession of his approximately $95,000 airplane.
The Alaska Supreme Court upheld the forfeiture, focusing not on the unfairness of taking a $95,000 airplane as a penalty for transporting a six-pack of beer, but on the abstract, broader harms generally associated with illegal alcohol importation. The Court ignored the details of Mr. Jouppi’s case, his actual culpability, and the lack of proportionality between the misdemeanor crime he committed and the massive forfeiture of his airplane.
“Accountability is an essential part of justice. But accountability must be proportionate to the conduct. Taking a $95,000 airplane over a six-pack of beer crosses that line and is exactly the kind of excessive punishment the Eighth Amendment was meant to guard against,” said FJP Executive Director Aramis Donell. “Prosecutors have a responsibility to ensure that the punishment fits the crime. When mandatory penalties produce an excessive result, courts have a duty to enforce the Constitution’s limits. Those protections are fundamental to a justice system that is fair, credible, and worthy of the public’s trust.”
The stakes of this case extend well beyond one airplane. Forfeiture is unusual because the state government and law enforcement agencies involved benefit financially from the property they seize, creating incentives that can distort enforcement priorities. And unlike a monetary fee that can be adjusted to fit the circumstances, forfeiture can be all or nothing.
That is precisely why the Eighth Amendment’s protection against excessive fines matters. If courts evaluate only how serious an offense could be in the abstract and neglect the actual conduct and culpability of the person before them, that constitutional safeguard provides little meaningful protection against disproportionate forfeitures that financially benefit government agencies.
Public safety is compromised when people believe unfair, excessive penalties are being imposed. Police and prosecutors depend on people to report crimes, serve as witnesses, and cooperate with investigations. When punishment appears arbitrary or wildly out of proportion to the conduct involved, it can undermine confidence in the justice system and the trust on which effective law enforcement depends.
FJP is urging the Supreme Court to reject an approach that looks only at an offense in the abstract and instead ensure that courts meaningfully enforce the Eighth Amendment protections against excessive fines.
Read FJP’s amicus brief here.