WASHINGTON, DC – Following oral argument at the Supreme Court this morning in Pung v. Isabella County, a case in which the Court is considering 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 Senior Appellate Counsel Miriam Becker-Cohen issued the following reaction:

Although the Supreme Court today was focused on the Takings Clause issue in this case, there is another important issue presented. As we explained in our amicus brief, the court below used an ahistorical and overly simplistic test to ascertain whether the government’s seizure of the Pung family home amounted to a “fine” within the meaning of the Excessive Fines Clause.

The proper test for whether an economic sanction is a “fine” under the Eighth Amendment is whether it serves at least in part as punishment. A sanction may be a “fine” whether or not it is tied to criminal behavior, and whether or not its main purpose is punitive.

This case presents an opportunity for the Supreme Court to set the record straight on the proper legal analysis for what constitutes a fine within the meaning of the Eighth Amendment without even reaching the question of whether the scheme at issue here is in fact a fine. It should do so.