[{"command":"add_css","data":[{"rel":"stylesheet","media":"all","href":"\/sites\/default\/files\/css\/css_veuEhhb1658wti0_ZAig66JOyixENU-N9zhjLQSLfOQ.css?delta=0\u0026language=en\u0026theme=heritage_theme\u0026include=eJwrTi1LzdNPzkksLq7Uy8tPSQUAPMsGtA"}]},{"command":"invoke","selector":null,"method":"openEssay","args":["18027903","\n\n\u003Carticle about=\u0022\/constitution\/amendments\/8\/essays\/205\/excessive-fines\u0022 class=\u0022node node--type-constitution-essay node--promoted node--view-mode-embedded clearfix\u0022\u003E\n  \u003Ch1 class=\u0022title\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan\u003EExcessive Fines\u003C\/span\u003E\n\u003C\/h1\u003E\n\n      \u003Cdiv class=\u0022con-location\u0022\u003E\n      Amendment VIII\n    \u003C\/div\u003E\n    \u003Cdiv class=\u0022con-essay-context\u0022\u003E\n      \n            \u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cp\u003E...nor excessive fines imposed...\u003C\/p\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n      \n    \u003C\/div\u003E\n      \n  \u003Cdiv class=\u0022con-essay-body\u0022\u003E\n    \n            \u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cp\u003EThe English Bill of Rights of 1689 also sought to undo the practice of the judges who, favoring the Stuarts, levied fines against the king\u2019s enemies, thus allowing them to be jailed for nonpayment. At the time of the drafting of the Eighth Amendment, a majority of states included the prohibition of excessive fines in their constitutions, and the provision in the amendment induced no debate on the floor of Congress.\u003C\/p\u003E\n\n\u003Cp\u003EIn \u003Cem\u003EUnited States v. Bajakajian\u003C\/em\u003E (1998), the Supreme Court found little in the history of the clause to determine what would constitute an \u201cexcessive\u201d fine. It declared that, within the context of judicial deference to the legislature\u2019s power to set punishments, a fine would not offend the Eighth Amendment unless it were \u201cgrossly disproportional to the gravity of a defendant\u2019s offense.\u201d\u003C\/p\u003E\n\n\u003Cp\u003EApplying the standard, the Court, through Justice Clarence Thomas, found that a $357,144 civil forfeiture penalty for failing to report a currency transfer of more than ten thousand dollars was grossly disproportionate to the fine for conviction, which would have been only five thousand dollars. In dissent, Justice Anthony Kennedy found the scale of forfeiture quite common and would have deferred to Congress\u2019s determination of the need for and the appropriateness of the forfeiture. But the \u201cgrossly disproportionate\u201d standard has also led courts to permit substantial fines. \u003Cem\u003ESee, e.g., United States v. Blackwell\u003C\/em\u003E (2006) (upholding a fine of one million dollars for insider trading, in addition to seventy-two months\u2019 imprisonment).\u003C\/p\u003E\n\n\u003Cp\u003EAlthough the Court had held in \u003Cem\u003EAustin v. United States \u003C\/em\u003E(1993) that a civil forfeiture penalty was included within the protections of the Excessive Fines Clause, it had also declared that a punitive damage award in a purely civil case is not covered by the clause, holding that there must be \u201ca payment to a sovereign as punishment for some offense\u201d for the clause to apply. \u003Cem\u003EBrowning-Ferris Industries v. Kelco Disposal, Inc. \u003C\/em\u003E(1989). Thus, in \u003Cem\u003EExxon Shipping Co. v. Baker\u003C\/em\u003E (2008), the Court ruled that the Excessive Fines Clause does not constrain an award of money damages in a civil suit when the government has neither prosecuted the action nor has any right to receive a share of the damages awarded. The Court, in some highly contested decisions, now reviews punitive damage awards under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. \u003Cem\u003ESee, e.g., BMW of North America, Inc. v. Gore\u003C\/em\u003E (1996).\u003C\/p\u003E\n\n\u003Cp\u003EIn \u003Cem\u003ECooper Industries, Inc. v. Leatherman Tool Group, Inc. \u003C\/em\u003E(2001), the Court determined that the Fourteenth Amendment\u2019s Due Process Clause had essentially incorporated the Excessive Fines Clause and made it applicable to the states.\u003C\/p\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n      \n  \u003C\/div\u003E\n\n      \u003Cdiv class=\u0022con-essay-author\u0022\u003E\n      \u003Cdiv class=\u0022con-essay-author--media\u0022\u003E\n            \u003C\/div\u003E\n      \u003Cdiv class=\u0022con-essay-author--info\u0022\u003E\n              \u003Ch4 class=\u0022con-essay-author--name\u0022\u003E\n                      David F. Forte\n                  \u003C\/h4\u003E\n                  \u003Cdiv class=\u0022con-essay-author--job\u0022\u003E\n         Professor, Cleveland Marshall School of Law\n      \u003C\/div\u003E\n            \u003C\/div\u003E\n    \u003C\/div\u003E\n\n    \u003Cdiv class=\u0022con-essay-tabs\u0022\u003E\n      \u003Cul data-tabs class=\u0022tabs\u0022\u003E\n        \u003Cli class=\u0022button-more thirds\u0022\u003E\u003Ca data-tab href=\u0022#node-18027903-taba\u0022\u003EFurther Reading\u003C\/a\u003E\u003C\/li\u003E\n        \u003Cli class=\u0022button-more thirds\u0022\u003E\u003Ca data-tab href=\u0022#node-18027903-tabb\u0022\u003ECase Law\u003C\/a\u003E\u003C\/li\u003E\n        \u003Cli class=\u0022button-more thirds\u0022\u003E\u003Ca data-tab href=\u0022#node-18027903-tabc\u0022\u003ERelated Essays\u003C\/a\u003E\u003C\/li\u003E\n      \u003C\/ul\u003E\n\n      \u003Cdiv data-tabs-content\u003E\n        \u003Cdiv data-tabs-pane class=\u0022tabs-pane\u0022 id=\u0022node-18027903-taba\u0022\u003E\n          \n      \u003Cdiv\u003E\n              \u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cp\u003EBarry L. Johnson, Purging the Cruel and Unusual: The Autonomous Excessive Fines Clause and Desert-Based Constitutional Limits on Forfeiture after United States v. Bajakajian, 2000 U. ILL. L. REV. 461 (2000)\u003C\/p\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n              \u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cp\u003ECalvin R. Massey, The Excessive Fines Clause and Punitive Damages: Some Lessons from History, 40 VAND. L. REV. 1233 (1987)\u003C\/p\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n              \u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cp\u003EBrent Skorup, Ensuring Eighth Amendment Protection from Excessive Fines in Civil Asset Forfeiture Cases, 22 GEO. MASON U. C.R. L.J. 427 (2012)\u003C\/p\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n          \u003C\/div\u003E\n  \n        \u003C\/div\u003E\n        \u003Cdiv data-tabs-pane class=\u0022tabs-pane\u0022 id=\u0022node-18027903-tabb\u0022\u003E\n          \n      \u003Cdiv\u003E\n              \u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cp\u003EBrowning-Ferris Industries v. Kelco Disposal, Inc., 492 U.S. 257 (1989)\u003C\/p\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n              \u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cp\u003EAustin v. United States, 509 U.S. 602 (1993)\u003C\/p\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n              \u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cp\u003EBMW of North America, Inc. v. Gore, 517 U.S. 559 (1996)\u003C\/p\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n              \u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cp\u003EUnited States v. Bajakajian, 524 U.S. 321 (1998)\u003C\/p\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n              \u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cp\u003ECooper Industries, Inc. v. Leatherman Tool Group, Inc., 532 U.S. 424 (2001)\u003C\/p\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n              \u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cp\u003EUnited States v. Blackwell, 459 F.3d 739 (6th Cir. 2006)\u003C\/p\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n              \u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cp\u003EExxon Shipping Co. v. Baker, 554 U.S. 472 (2008)\u003C\/p\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n          \u003C\/div\u003E\n  \n        \u003C\/div\u003E\n        \u003Cdiv data-tabs-pane class=\u0022tabs-pane\u0022 id=\u0022node-18027903-tabc\u0022\u003E\n                      \u003Ca href=\u0022\/essay_controller\/10000060\u0022 class=\u0022use-ajax\u0022\u003ESuspension of Habeas Corpus\u003C\/a\u003E\n                      \u003Ca href=\u0022\/essay_controller\/10000169\u0022 class=\u0022use-ajax\u0022\u003EDue Process Clause\u003C\/a\u003E\n                  \u003C\/div\u003E\n      \u003C\/div\u003E\n    \u003C\/div\u003E\n  \n\u003C\/article\u003E\n"]}]