The Supreme Court will hear oral argument Dec. 1 in Jouppi v. Alaska, a case that could reshape civil and criminal forfeiture law. The dispute began when state troopers found three cases of beer in a passenger's cargo loaded onto Ken Jouppi's plane, bound for a dry village. Jouppi, an 83-year-old Air Force veteran who ran a small aviation service, was convicted of a misdemeanor and sentenced to jail time and fines; the state also seized his $95,000 airplane.
The central question is whether the forfeiture violates the Eighth Amendment's Excessive Fines Clause. In Timbs v. Indiana (2019), the court applied that clause to state and local governments. Under United States v. Bajakajian (1998), a punitive forfeiture is unconstitutional if it is grossly disproportionate to the gravity of the offense. Courts have split on how to apply that test, and Alaska's Supreme Court ruled against Jouppi.
The case is significant because forfeiture generates billions of dollars for governments each year. Alaska's law was designed to address alcohol abuse in rural areas, but the Institute for Justice, representing Jouppi, argues the punishment is excessive relative to his personal culpability. The court's decision could clarify whether judges must weigh an individual's specific conduct rather than general societal harms when reviewing forfeitures.