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.

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

More from Rule of Law

Rule of Law
June 7, 2023

Congress Just Upended the Legal Case Against Biden’s Student Debt Relief Plan

Later this month, the Supreme Court will issue its decision on whether the Biden administration’s...
By: Alex Rowell
Rule of Law
May 26, 2023

Unanimity Doesn’t Mean Supreme Court Actually Agrees

Bloomberg Law
Although Supreme Court justices were unanimous in backing landowners in a Big EPA case, their...
By: Miriam Becker-Cohen, by Kimberly Strawbridge Robinson
Rule of Law
May 24, 2023

The White House Wants a Debt Ceiling Deal

The American Prospect
By opposing an injunction in the main lawsuit challenging the debt ceiling, the president has...
By: Brianne J. Gorod, By David Dayen
Rule of Law
May 25, 2023

County That Kept Tax Sale Surplus Must Face ‘Takings’ Challenge, Justices Say

National Law Journal
“Our precedents have … recognized the principle that a taxpayer is entitled to the surplus...
By: Miriam Becker-Cohen, by Brad Kutner
Rule of Law
May 25, 2023

Minnesota County Had No Right to Confiscate Elderly Woman’s Home Equity, Supreme Court Rules

National Review
The Supreme Court has ruled in favor of the plaintiff in Tyler v. Hennepin County, finding...
Rule of Law
U.S. Supreme Court

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau v. Community Finance Services Association of America

In CFPB v. CFSA, the Supreme Court is considering whether Congress’s chosen method of funding the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau violates the Appropriations Clause of the Constitution.