Rule of Law

RELEASE: Justices Gorsuch and Jackson Today Provide Important Guidance to Lower Courts on Constitution’s Excessive Fines Clause

WASHINGTON, DC – Following the Supreme Court’s announcement of its decision in Tyler v. Hennepin County, Constitutional Accountability Center Appellate Counsel Miriam Becker-Cohen issued the following reaction:

Although the Supreme Court reversed the court below on Takings Clause grounds, Justice Gorsuch’s concurrence, joined by Justice Jackson, sends an important signal to other courts that they should be mindful of the lower court’s errors in applying the Excessive Fines Clause.  Echoing our brief, Justice Gorsuch emphasized that for purposes of discerning whether a statute imposes a “fine” within the meaning of the Eighth Amendment, “it matters not whether the scheme has a remedial purpose, even a predominantly remedial purpose.”  Rather, the Excessive Fines Clause applies to “any” statutory scheme that serves in part to punish. This point is supported not just by a clear line of Supreme Court precedents—cases cited in our brief and that Justice Gorsuch drew upon in his concurrence—but also by the history of the Excessive Fines Clause, dating all the way back to Magna Carta. We are pleased that two justices—typically perceived as coming from opposite sides of the ideological spectrum—united to make clear that courts should respect the text and history of the Excessive Fines Clause.

##
Resources:
##
Constitutional Accountability Center is a nonpartisan think tank and public interest law firm dedicated to fulfilling the progressive promise of the Constitution’s text, history, and values. Visit CAC’s website at www.theusconstitution.org.
###

More from Rule of Law

Rule of Law
April 25, 2025

When does President Donald Trump’s defiance of courts in deportation case cross the line into a constitutional crisis?

Cronkite News
WASHINGTON – Presidents of both parties have pushed the limits of their authority throughout history....
Rule of Law
U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia

American Foreign Service Association v. Trump

In American Foreign Service Association v. Trump, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia is considering whether the Trump Administration’s efforts to unilaterally dismantle USAID are constitutional and comply with federal law.
Rule of Law
April 14, 2025

Congressional Democrats Fight Back Against Trump’s Attacks on the FTC and Independent Agencies

Cory Booker Senate
Today, Senate and House Democrats filed an amicus brief opposing President Donald Trump’s unlawful attempt...
Rule of Law
U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia

Slaughter v. Trump

In Slaughter v. Trump, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia is considering whether Trump’s attempted firing of Commissioners Rebecca Slaughter and Alvaro Bedoya from the Federal Trade Commission was illegal.
Rule of Law
April 29, 2025

Is the US headed for a constitutional crisis?

Deutsche Welle
US President Donald Trump is issuing executive orders on a daily basis. So far, he’s...
Rule of Law
April 10, 2025

April 2025 Newsletter: Supporting New Scholarship for the Next Generation

Supporting New Scholarship for the Next Generation On March 20 and 21, CAC was thrilled...