"Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, on just her second day back on the bench after undergoing cancer surgery in December, announced the decision for the court, saying that the 8th Amendment’s Excessive Fines Clause protects against government retribution.
“For good reason, the protection against excessive fines has been a constant shield throughout Anglo-American history: Exorbitant tolls undermine other constitutional liberties,” Ginsburg wrote. “Excessive fines can be used, for example, to retaliate against or chill the speech of political enemies . . . Even absent a political motive, fines may be employed in a measure out of accord with the penal goals of retribution and deterrence.”
"Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in a recent opinion that civil forfeitures have “become widespread and highly profitable.”
“This system — where police can seize property with limited judicial oversight and retain it for their own use — has led to egregious and well-chronicled abuses,” Thomas wrote, referring to reporting by The Washington Post and the New Yorker."
Bet NJ Democrats are squirming. Not only did they make felons of magazine possessors but SCOTUS just asked them why they shouldn’t look at more of their current draconian laws.
I have a feeling that a majority of seizure cases are going to be upheld until there is more precedent from the Circuit Courts. They could’ve mitigated that somewhat by saying that the seizure of the Land Rover in this case was excessive, but they punted.