Supreme Court To Hear Case Involving Forfeiture of a Plane Over a Six-Pack of Beer

The Supreme Court will hear a case involving an Alaska bush pilot who has been on a years-long quest to block the forfeiture of his plane over a six-pack of beer.Ken Jouppi has flown his $95,000 Cessna for decades to transport locals and tourists to spots across the Alaska wilderness. In 2012, Mr. Jouppi was preparing to transport a woman carrying groceries 110 miles from Fairbanks to the tiny village of Beaver where her husband is the postmaster. Among the groceries were three cases of beer.The beer was illegal to bring to Beaver because it has been a dry town since 2004. State troopers say a six-pack of Budweiser was visible in the plane and was enough to search the entire plane.Mr. Jouppi told police that he was unaware of the beer but he and the passenger were charged with misdemeanors, fined $1,500, and sentenced to three days in jail. The state has also spent more than a decade trying to confiscate Mr. Jouppi’s plane.The state argues that alcohol abuse is a serious problem in the state and penalties must be enforced to deter non-compliance with alcohol regulations.The Alaska Supreme Court, in 2025, ruled that the forfeiture of his plane would not be excessive. “The illegal importation of even a six-pack of beer causes grave societal harm,” the court concluded. It added that forcing Mr. Jouppi to forfeit his plane “does not violate the Excessive Fines Clause.”The Supreme Court, on Monday, agreed to hear the case to decide on the constitutionality of that ruling.“I’m thrilled that the U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear this case, because this case isn’t just about me or my airplane anymore,” Mr. Jouppi said in a statement released by a public-interest law firm that has been representing Mr. Jouppi, the Institute for Justice.“I’m in my 80s now, and I’ve been fighting this for over a decade because I see it as my duty to ensure that the Bill of Rights actually means something in protecting against government overreach,” Mr. Jouppi continued.The institute says the Alaska Supreme Court’s ruling put it at odds with other courts around the country and a Supreme Court decision.“The Excessive Fines Clause enshrines a timeless principle: The fine must fit the crime,” Institute for Justice lawyer Mike Greenberg said. “Protection against excessive fines is one of our most critical constitutional safeguards, and it’s critical that the U.S. Supreme Court instruct lower courts to treat that right with the importance it deserves.”The institute says it’s critical that the court affirm the Bill of Rights’ Excessive Fines Clause in a way that better secures protections for citizens nationwide.The Cato Institute filed its own brief in support of Mr. Jouppi. “The Court should take this case so that anyone can walk into any court in this country with the confidence that comes from the full protection of the Eighth Amendment,” Thomas Berry wrote in the Cato Institute’s brief.Alaska’s attorney general, Stephen Cox, argued that Mr. Jouppi’s case is not a civil forfeiture case but is a criminal case where his culpability was proved to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. “This case would be an odd vehicle through which to address any concerns about civil forfeitures,” Mr. Cox wrote in an opposition brief to the Supreme Court.The justices disagreed with Alaska’s position and granted a petition to hear the case during the term that starts in October.

Supreme Court To Hear Case Involving Forfeiture of a Plane Over a Six-Pack of Beer

Supreme Court To Hear Case Involving Forfeiture of a Plane Over a Six-Pack of Beer

More from the New York Sun

NYC Comptroller Mark Levine’s Broken Pledge on Israel Bonds Will Fuel BDS, Predecessor Tells the Sun

Exclusive: Selma Blair on Her Troubled Hollywood Post-October 7 Cancellation

What Would Advances by the Democrats Mean?

If Blakeman Takes Down Hochul, That Means Knocking Out Mamdani, Too

Microbiology Student Captured Trying To Flee to China After Allegedly Poisoning Colleague Over Coveted Technology Patents

Democrats Dismiss Idea El-Sayed Has a Problem With Black Voters as Rogers Hopes To Make Inroads

Mamdani Calls Blakeman a Racist After GOP Nominee for Governor Said the Mayor Was an Antisemite

Press Secretary Katie Zacharia Accused in Formal Complaint of Violating State Law by Lying About Her Legal Experience

More from the New York Sun

NYC Comptroller Mark Levine’s Broken Pledge on Israel Bonds Will Fuel BDS, Predecessor Tells the Sun

Exclusive: Selma Blair on Her Troubled Hollywood Post-October 7 Cancellation

What Would Advances by the Democrats Mean?

If Blakeman Takes Down Hochul, That Means Knocking Out Mamdani, Too

Microbiology Student Captured Trying To Flee to China After Allegedly Poisoning Colleague Over Coveted Technology Patents

Democrats Dismiss Idea El-Sayed Has a Problem With Black Voters as Rogers Hopes To Make Inroads

Mamdani Calls Blakeman a Racist After GOP Nominee for Governor Said the Mayor Was an Antisemite

Press Secretary Katie Zacharia Accused in Formal Complaint of Violating State Law by Lying About Her Legal Experience