Supreme Court Takes Up Alaska Bush Pilot’s Fight to Save His Plane From Forfeiture Over a Six-Pack of Beer

For more than a decade, the state of Alaska has been trying to permanently forfeit Ken Jouppi’s $95,000 airplane after he transported a passenger carrying a six-pack of beer. Today, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to decide whether it can. 

For decades, Ken flew his Cessna across the Alaskan wilderness, shuttling the locals and tourists who depend on bush pilots like him. Then, in 2012, state troopers found some Budweiser tucked in a passenger’s luggage. Ken and the passenger were charged with misdemeanors, fined $1,500 and sentenced to three days in jail. But that wasn’t enough for Alaska. For the past 14 years, the state has fought to take Ken’s plane too, as additional punishment for a passenger’s beer. Ken is in his 80s now and he is still fighting. Now, the nation’s highest court will decide whether taking a man’s plane over a six-pack is an unconstitutionally excessive fine. 

“The Excessive Fines Clause of the Constitution was built for cases like this,” said Sam Gedge, a senior attorney at the Institute for Justice (IJ), which represents Ken. “As government agencies increasingly exploit fines and forfeitures to pad their budgets, it’s vital that the Supreme Court make clear that the Excessive Fines Clause is a meaningful check on government overreach. We’re confident that it will do so here.” 

Ken’s saga started as a normal day, on April 3, 2012, when he was preparing to ferry a passenger and her groceries from Fairbanks to the village of Beaver, which had voted in 2004 to ban alcohol outright. Tucked in the passenger’s luggage were three cases of beer, two Budweiser and one Bud Light, meant as a gift for her husband, the local postmaster. State troopers found them before Ken could take off, claiming one six-pack was in plain view. That was enough, they said, to make Ken complicit.

In addition to charging Ken with a misdemeanor offense, the state also sought to seize and keep his plane. After 13 years, in April 2025, the Alaska Supreme Court rejected Ken’s argument that forfeiting his airplane violated the Excessive Fines Clause. “[T]he illegal importation of even a six-pack of beer causes grave societal harm,” the court reasoned, so forfeiting Jouppi’s airplane “does not violate the Excessive Fines Clause.” Now, the U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to decide whether the Alaska court’s understanding of the Excessive Fines Clause was correct.

“I’m thrilled that the U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear this case, because this case isn’t just about me or my airplane anymore,” said Ken. “I’m in my 80s now, and I’ve been fighting this for over a decade because I see it as my duty to ensure that the Bill of Rights actually means something in protecting against government overreach.” 

The Alaska Supreme Court’s ruling put it at odds with other courts around the country. Most notably, in Timbs v. Indiana—a case litigated by IJ—the U.S. Supreme Court in 2019 held that the Excessive Fines Clause applies not just to the federal government, but to states as well. Following that first-round victory, the Indiana Supreme Court ruled that forfeiting Tyson Timbs’ $40,000 Land Rover over a low-level drug offense was unconstitutionally excessive. By contrast, Alaska’s courts hold that forfeiting a $95,000 plane over a six-pack of beer is not excessive. That disparity underscored the need for the U.S. Supreme Court to clarify the standard for determining whether a fine is unconstitutionally excessive. 

“The Excessive Fines Clause enshrines a timeless principle: The fine must fit the crime,” said IJ Attorney Mike Greenberg. “Protection against excessive fines is one of our most critical constitutional safeguards, and it’s critical that the U.S. Supreme Court instruct lower courts to treat that right with the importance it deserves.” 

The Institute for Justice (IJ) is a public-interest law firm that litigates nationwide to vindicate individual liberties and the right to be free from excessive fines in particular. In addition to winning Timbs v. Indiana at the U.S. Supreme Court and twice at the Indiana Supreme Court, IJ is appealing to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals a $437,000 fine the IRS imposed on a retired professor for failing to file a one-page form informing the agency of his legal foreign bank account. IJ is also currently litigating to protect Detroiters targeted by Wayne County, Michigan’s forfeiture apparatus and thousands of Alabamians victimized by a notorious profit-fueled ticketing scheme in Brookside, Alabama.