There's only one case set for argument today, and we have a preview below. It's a civil forfeiture case titled Timbs v. Indiana, but plaintiff Tyson Timbs is not the only party. Some briefs call it by its full name: Tyson Timbs and a 2012 Land Rover LR2 v. State of Indiana. We're told Timbs will be in the courtroom, but the seized Land Rover won't. Plus, scroll down for a fun chat with the author of Supreme Court Haiku, first a Twitter feed and now a book. Thanks for reading, and we'll see you next week. Contact us at [email protected] and [email protected].

Justices Take Up 'Policing for Profit' Case

The case of Timbs v. Indiana, set for argument this morning, has a lot in common with Kelo v. City of New London, the 2005 case that launched a national campaign and even spawned a movie.

Both were the creation of the Institute for Justice, the libertarian group that perfected, if not invented, a Supreme Court strategy that includes a big dollop of public relations.

Both invoke parts of the Bill of Rights—excessive fines for Timbs, eminent domain for Kelo—to fend off overreaching institutions (law enforcement in Timbs, developers in Kelo.)

But they may diverge in one important way. The Institute for Justice lost Kelo by 5-4, while it might well win the Timbs case.

Of course, when the sympathetic plaintiff Susette Kelo lost the battle to keep her home from being taken to make way for a commercial development in Connecticut, the public backlash triggered legislation nationwide to reform and limit eminent domain.

In short, the Institute won by losing. Institute for Justice president Scott Bullock, who argued the Kelo case once told NLJ, “I and several of my colleagues have had people sincerely say to us, 'Congratulations on Kelo.' It could fairly be viewed as losing the battle, but winning the war.”

In the Timbs case, the war is already being won. Tyson Timbs comes to the court as the face of a campaign against civil forfeiture that is well under way. And yes, there's a video of Timbs and his lawyers talking about the case and what's at stake. Indiana police seized his $42,000 Land Rover, purchased through an inheritance, after arresting him in 2013 for a few three-figure drug transactions.

Lawyers for Timbs claimed the seizure amounted to an excessive fine under the Sixth Amendment. He won in lower Indiana courts. But the Indiana Supreme Court reversed, ruling that, unlike most provisions of the Bill of Rights, the excessive fines clause had not yet been applied to the states.

“When the Indiana Supreme Court handed down its decision, it really looked like a perfect candidate for the U.S. Supreme Court's review,” said Samuel Gedge (above), an Institute for Justice lawyer on the Timbs team. The Institute had been active for years on civil forfeiture on the litigation front and elsewhere. “We've been involved on the legislative front, too. Increasingly, state lawmakers are recognizing that there are serious problems with civil forfeiture.”

But taking the issue to the Supreme Court could finish the war.

Several justices have mentioned in other cases that they think the excessive fines clause should be—or already has been—“incorporated” or applied to the states. A flood of amicus brief filed by groups ranging from the conservative Judicial Watch to the ACLU and the Chamber of Commerce may seal the deal.

The Land Rover, parked somewhere in an Indianapolis police garage, may soon get forfeited back to Tyson Timbs.

Supreme Court Haiku, in Book Form

Supreme Court Haiku, the popular Twitter account, has come together in book form. The back cover blurbs include: “Like most Americans, I have long waited for America's most important Supreme Court cases to be available in one place as mediocre Japanese poetry. I don't have to wait any longer!” —Me.

The tongue-in-cheek “Me” is author Keith Jaasma, managing principal in Houston's Ewing & Jones, where he practices commercial litigation and intellectual property.

“I told myself that when I got 3,000 twitter followers, I'd write a book, and didn't. Then if I got 5,000 followers, I'd write a book, and didn't,” Jaasma said in a recent interview. Finally, “it just seemed like it was time after nine years of doing this.” (He now has 10,300 followers.) Jaasma said he looked into self-publishing and concluded: “I think I can do it.”

His fascination with Haiku began soon after he had written two law review articles, one on the right of publicity in Texas, and the other on a “really obscure” concept in patent law.

“I finished them and was kind of burned out and thought: What was the most significant thing I could write about in the shortest form? Supreme Court haiku popped up,” he recalled.

Haiku is a simple form of poetry that everyone learned in school, Jaasma said. A domain was available and he wrote nine or ten cases beginning with Marbury v. Madison. “I originally had a crazy idea: Why not do haiku for every Supreme Court decision? It was a really bad idea,” he said after realizing how many decisions that would involve.

Haiku is of limited use in his law practice, he concedes, but when he has written haiku about a Supreme Court decision, it does help to recall the case. Jaasma also has the Bill of Rights in haiku form on his website.

“I haven't gotten tired of it yet,” he said. “Certainly in May or June it's a little tougher when work gets in the way. It's relatively manageable and pleasant and feels good to be a very small part of the conversation. At least when people discuss cases, I've read enough of them to have my own thoughts.”

What We're Reading: CJ Roberts Edition

>> Even though he may have dealt a legal setback to the endangered dusky gopher frog, Chief Justice Roberts Jr. on Tuesday painted a colorful verbal image of the critter in a key environmental case. [NLJ]

>> “The chief justice is only now realizing that Trump represents a threat to the legitimacy of the judiciary, and therefore to the rule of law. As Roberts sees it, his job as head of the federal court system gives him the obligation to defend judges and the law itself.” [Bloomberg]

>> “Roberts has too much integrity to permit Trump's imbecility to affect his legal judgment. On the other hand, that same integrity bodes ill for Trump if his fortunes are one day put in the court's hands.” [USA Today]