Thirteen years ago, a passenger brought a six-pack of beer onto Ken Jouppi’s 1969 Cessna airplane. This act resulted in criminal liability for Jouppi, the unwitting pilot. In Alaska, it is a crime to transport alcohol into certain “dry villages.” Jouppi, who has piloted planes in Alaska since the 1970s, was well aware of these laws. But because he didn’t search his passengers, Jouppi was convicted of a misdemeanor and his plane became subject to forfeiture. Even though Jouppi was a first-time offender, the alcohol didn’t belong to him, and his plane never took off, he has been forced to spend the last thirteen years fighting to keep ownership of it.

For years, Jouppi’s case bounced around Alaska courts. The trial court twice determined that forfeiture of Jouppi’s airplane would be an excessive fine in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Recently, however, the Alaska Supreme Court decided otherwise: It determined that there were no further issues of fact and that the forfeiture was not unconstitutionally excessive. In analyzing the constitutionality of that forfeiture, the state’s highest court adopted a myopic view of excessiveness. Instead of asking whether the forfeiture was excessive in light of Jouppi’s specific violation, the court examined all of the harms of alcohol transportation in the abstract. When it made its determination, the Alaska Supreme Court considered the harms caused by the sum of all illegal alcohol transportation—fetal alcohol syndrome disorder, alcoholism, and death—rather than the harm caused by Jouppi’s first-time misdemeanor offense. In doing so, the court broke with many states and its own federal circuit.

Jouppi has appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States. Cato filed an amicus brief arguing that the standard used by the Alaska Supreme Court is contrary to the original understanding of the Eighth Amendment. For centuries, English common law took into account the characteristics of the defendant and his or her specific violation in determining excessiveness. The Framers understood excessiveness in the same way, and they adopted the Eighth Amendment to codify the right to be free from excessive fines. When courts ignore the context of any specific violation, they will routinely impose excessive fines. And when courts lose touch with the original understanding of a fundamental right, they risk watering down the constitutional protections that must be afforded to everyday people. Such dilution of rights is especially dangerous today as governments generate billions of dollars in revenue through civil and criminal asset forfeiture. This case gives the Supreme Court the opportunity to ensure that the people are afforded the protection that the Eighth Amendment promises them.