The Economist 2/21/2019
https://www.economist.com/democracy-in-america/2019/02/21/the-supreme-court-curtails-states-power-to-seize-propertyJustice done
The Supreme Court curtails states’ power to seize property
The unanimous decision is being cheered by advocates on the left and right
TYSON TIMBS, a man from Indiana, had his $42,000 Land Rover seized in 2015 after he pleaded guilty to selling $385 worth of heroin to undercover police. The confiscation seemed unreasonable to the small-time drug dealer, so Mr Timbs sued, arguing that the Eighth Amendment’s bar on “excessive fines†protected him from having so much of his property grabbed by authorities. The justices heard Mr Timbs's case in November, putting civil-asset forfeiture—a widespread and widely reviled practice whereby police take control of property that was used in a suspected crime—under scrutiny. But until February 20th, the constitutional protection against excessive fines applied only when the federal government tried to take too much from the accused. With the Supreme Court’s 9-0 decision in Timbs v Indiana, states and localities are now on notice that they are constrained as well.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg (pictured) wrote for a unanimous court in Timbs, finding that the constitution protects people accused of crimes from having outlandish sums seized by city or state authorities. In the language of the law, the excessive-fines clause is now “incorporated†against the states, as are nearly all of the other protections in the Bill of Rights. As Justice Ginsburg explained, with only a few exceptions, the Supreme Court “has held that the Fourteenth Amendment’s due-process clause incorporates the protections contained in the Bill of Rights, rendering them applicable to the statesâ€. A right qualifies for incorporation “if it is ‘fundamental to our scheme of ordered liberty’, or ‘deeply rooted in this nation’s history and tradition’.
SCOTUSblog
https://www.scotusblog.com/2019/02/friday-round-up-459/#more-283199
Friday round-up
At The Economist’s Democracy in America blog, Steven Mazie covers the court’s decision Tuesday in Timbs v. Indiana, in which the justices ruled unanimously “that the constitution protects people accused of crimes from having outlandish sums seized by city or state authorities.†Subscript Law offers a graphic explainer for the decision. At Bloomberg Law, Jordan Rubin and Kimberly Robinson report that in separate concurrences, Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch supported “incorporating the Eighth Amendment’s excessive fines clause to the states by way of the privileges or immunities clause instead of via the Fourteenth Amendment’s due process clause,†“a view of the Constitution that could be incredibly consequential were it to eventually find favor with a majority of justices.†Commentary comes from Jason Snead and Elizabeth Slattery at The Daily Signal and Alan Kaplinsky at The National Law Review. At Stanford Law School’s Legal Aggregate blog, Sharon Driscoll discusses the decision with law professor Robert Weisberg.
