Timbs v. Indiana
139 S. Ct. 682
| SCOTUS | 2019Background
- Tyson Timbs pleaded guilty in Indiana state court to drug dealing and conspiracy, received one year home detention, five years probation with addiction-treatment, and fees/costs of $1,203.
- Police seized Timbs's Land Rover (purchase price ≈ $42,000) as subject of a civil in rem forfeiture alleging use to transport heroin.
- Trial court found the vehicle had facilitated a crime but denied forfeiture as grossly disproportionate to the offense given the $10,000 statutory maximum fine, invoking the Eighth Amendment Excessive Fines Clause.
- Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed; Indiana Supreme Court reversed, holding the Excessive Fines Clause does not constrain the States.
- Supreme Court granted certiorari to decide whether the Eighth Amendment's Excessive Fines Clause is incorporated against the States under the Fourteenth Amendment and remanded—holding the Clause is incorporated.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the Eighth Amendment’s Excessive Fines Clause incorporated against the States under the Fourteenth Amendment? | Timbs: Clause is a fundamental protection and should apply to the States. | Indiana: Clause historically applies only to federal action; not incorporated against States. | Yes. The Clause is incorporated via the Fourteenth Amendment (Due Process Clause). |
| Do civil in rem forfeitures fall within the Excessive Fines Clause when punitive? | Timbs: Forfeitures that are at least partially punitive are fines and subject to the Clause. | Indiana: (argued below) forfeitures should be outside the Clause’s reach; also urged overruling Austin. | Court declines to overrule Austin and confirms civil in rem forfeitures can be fines when partially punitive. |
| Does incorporation require each application of a right to be historically rooted (e.g., forfeitures specifically)? | Timbs: Incorporation concerns the right generally, not every specific application. | Indiana: If Clause covers forfeiture, incorporation fails because application to forfeitures is not deeply rooted. | Incorporation analyzes the right generally; novel applications (like forfeitures) do not defeat incorporation. |
| Remedy / next step | Timbs: Remand to state court to decide excessiveness under incorporated Clause. | Indiana: (implicit) allow forfeiture or interpret state constitution to avoid Clause. | Judgment of Indiana Supreme Court vacated and case remanded for further proceedings consistent with incorporation. |
Key Cases Cited
- McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010) (standard for incorporation: fundamental to ordered liberty or deeply rooted in history)
- Austin v. United States, 509 U.S. 602 (1993) (civil forfeitures are subject to Excessive Fines Clause when at least partially punitive)
- Browning-Ferris Indus. of Vt., Inc. v. Kelco Disposal, Inc., 492 U.S. 257 (1989) (Eighth Amendment Clauses place parallel limits on punitive governmental power)
- United States v. Bajakajian, 524 U.S. 321 (1998) (fines as punishment; limits on government extraction)
- Harmelin v. Michigan, 501 U.S. 957 (1991) (excessive fines concern where penalties can generate revenue)
- Apodaca v. Oregon, 406 U.S. 404 (1972) (noted as an exception in incorporation application discussion)