The Supreme Court’s 2019 decision in Timbs v. Indiana was hailed by many as a watershed moment for a more expansive use of the Eight Amendment’s Excessive Fines Clause. Although Timbs generally had little impact on the way the federal circuits have assessed the proportionality of fines, fees, or forfeitures, the holding that it also applied to the states – coupled with strong dicta suggesting that a person’s ability to pay a fine should be part of the calculus for considering whether a financial sanction was excessive – seemed like the perfect invitation for state courts to explore the limits of the Excessive Fines Clause. This law review article provides the first systemic survey of the post-Timbs case law at the state level.
The author concludes that, despite the weight of scholarly opinion and Timbs’ dicta that an economic penalty may not be so great as to deprive a person of his livelihood, few state courts, and no federal courts, have been willing to challenge the status quo of a largely blanket deference to legislative intent. The fact that so little litigation on this issue has played out at the state level suggests that there may be an untapped opportunity for strengthening the protections afforded by the Excessive Fines Clause through state-level litigation.
The full law review article may be accessed here.