WASHINGTON, DC – Following today’s decision at the Supreme Court in Pung v. Isabella County, a case in which the Court considered whether the Excessive Fines Clause of the Eighth Amendment is implicated when a local government seizes real property to satisfy a tax debt and then merely reimburses the property owner with the remainder of the auction sale proceeds, as opposed to the full fair market value of the property, Constitutional Accountability Center Chief Counsel Brianne Gorod issued the following reaction:

Today, in four short paragraphs, the Supreme Court rejected Michael Pung’s claim that the County’s failure to compensate him for the fair market value of his property violated the Eighth Amendment’s Excessive Fines Clause.

While the result was disappointing, at least the Court properly recognized that forfeiture of property can be a “‘fin[e]’” for purposes of the Eighth Amendment if it serves “in part to punish.” As the amicus brief we filed in the case explained, that standard is consistent with the Clause’s historical roots, which show that it applies to financial penalties that are not just punitive, but also serve remedial purposes.

The Excessive Fines Clause was enshrined in the Constitution to help guard against government abuse and overreach. While the Court reached the wrong result today, its reiteration of that standard should help ensure that the Clause can continue to play this important role in future cases.