State and local authorities cannot treat Americans like ATMs. There are instead federal constitutional limits to the many fines, fees and forfeitures that states and localities impose. That is the principle that Tyson Timbs and the Institute for Justice established at the U.S. Supreme Court in 2019.
In a unanimous opinion by Justice Ginsburg, the Court held that the Eighth Amendment’s Excessive Fines Clause applies in state and local proceedings. The court reversed the Indiana Supreme Court’s determination (and that of three other states) that federal constitutional protections simply did not apply within state borders.
The case shines a spotlight on the excessive fines and fees often imposed by governments, and showcases yet another example of the inevitable abuse of power that results when government employs civil forfeiture, a process through which police and prosecutors seize someone’s property and keep the proceeds for themselves, thus giving law enforcement an incentive to maximize profits rather than seek the neutral administration of justice.
The case attracted amicus briefs from a diverse coalition of groups calling on the Court to hold that the Excessive Fines Clause applied nationwide. The groups included the Cato Institute, American Civil Liberties Union, Southern Poverty Law Center, NAACP, Constitutional Accountability Center, and Pacific Legal Foundation. All of the amicus briefs can be downloaded from the Supreme Court’s website.
The Supreme Court heard argument on November 28, 2018 at 10 a.m. Click here to read a transcript and click here to listen to the audio.
On February 20, 2019 the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that states cannot impose excessive fines.
On remand, the Indiana Supreme Court ruled in October 2019 that the Excessive Fines Clause provides meaningful protection against outsized fines and forfeitures. The court then sent the case back to the original trial court to determine whether confiscating Tyson’s vehicle is unconstitutional. The trial court ruled In Tyson’s favor in April 2020, and Tyson got his vehicle back in May 2020. The government appealed again to the Indiana Supreme Court, which ruled in Tyson’s favor in June 2021.
Case Team
Staff

John E. Kramer
Vice President for Strategic Relations
Case Documents
Petition for Certiorari
Brief in Opposition to Petition for Writ of Certiorari
Final Reply in Support of Cert
Merits Brief
Reply Brief for Petitioners
Transcript of Oral Arguments
Supreme Court Opinion
Opening Brief for Appellees
Supplemental Response Brief for Appellees
Indiana Supreme Court Opinion (On Remand)
Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Judgement
Indiana Supreme Court Opinion
Response Brief for Appellees (2020 Appeal)
Media Resources
Get in touch with the media contact and take a look at the image resources for the case.
John E. Kramer Vice President for Strategic Relations [email protected]
Press Releases
Related Cases

Civil Forfeiture | Private Property
Class Action Challenges FBI’s “Take Now, Explain Never” Forfeitures
Linda Martin's home savings were seized by the FBI. She received a confusing forfeiture notice that didn't clearly say what she did wrong for the government to want to take her money.

Civil Forfeiture | Private Property
Police seized an innocent woman’s $8,040, and now she is fighting to have her day in court
Cristal Starling runs a mobile food cart in Rochester, New York, to provide for herself and her grandnephew. She dreamed of expanding the business into a food truck, and she saved enough money to do…

Civil Forfeiture | Private Property
Armored Car Company Sues Federal Law Enforcement and a California Sheriff After Series of Illegal Roadside Seizures
An armored car company sued after a California sheriff teamed up with federal law enforcement to take proceeds from legal cannabis businesses.