SCOTUS Rightly Applies Excessive Fines Clause to States
Here in New Jersey, we have been protected from excessive fines since the Constitution of 1844. However, until now we have not had a companion protection under the federal Constitution. We welcome this important addition to our federal jurisprudence.
March 29, 2019 at 05:00 PM
2 minute read
We all remember from our constitutional law classes that the federal Bill of Rights originally did not apply to the states. It was through the process of “selective incorporation” that the United States Supreme Court, by a case-by-case process over the years, decided which of the amendments, and even which of the clauses within amendments, would be “incorporated” through the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment so as to apply to the states. The most important amendment that has not been applied to the states by the Supreme Court is the Seventh Amendment right to trial by jury in civil cases. In addition, the Eighth Amendment's “excessive fines” clause had never been applied to the states until February of this year.
Timbs v. Indiana was a case dealing with a civil forfeiture matter in which Timbs' $42,000 vehicle was seized in connection with a drug offense for which the maximum fine was only $10,000. Justice Ginsburg, in a very instructive opinion for the unanimous court, reviewed the grounds over the years on which the court had decided that amendments were “fundamental to our scheme of quartered liberty,” with “deep roots in our history and tradition.” In the 2010 decision of McDonald v. Chicago, the court had found, similarly, that the Second Amendment, after many years of an alternative view, was appropriate to be applied to the states.
Justice Ginsburg noted that when the 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868, “the constitutions of 35 of the 37 States—accounting for over 90% of the U.S. population—expressly prohibited excessive fines.” She concluded that the case for incorporation was “overwhelming.” The court reversed the decision of the Indiana Supreme Court and remanded for further consideration now that the Excessive Fines Clause was applicable.
Justices Gorsuch and Thomas concurred in the judgement.
Here in New Jersey, we have been protected from excessive fines since the Constitution of 1844. Article I, ¶ 12. However, until now we have not had a companion protection under the federal Constitution. We welcome this important addition to our federal jurisprudence.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllSocial Media Policy for Judges Provides Guidance in a Changing World
3 minute readBank of America's Cash Sweep Program Attracts New Legal Fire in Class Action
3 minute read'Something Really Bad Happened': J&J's Talc Bankruptcy Vote Under Attack
7 minute readTrending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250