Amid the legal battle surrounding former President Donald Trump’s quest to secure bond in the hefty judgment against him in New York, there’s speculation that the presumptive GOP presidential nominee might seek an unexpected source of legal assistance from the late Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, known for her liberal stance.
Ginsburg’s notable opinion in the case of Timbs v. Indiana, delivered on Feb. 20, 2019, sheds light on the application of the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on excessive fines to both state and federal governments.
In Timbs v. Indiana, Tyson Timbs faced the forfeiture of his Land Rover SUV by Indiana police, a vehicle he had purchased for $42,000. Despite pleading guilty to drug dealing and theft conspiracy, the state’s imposition of a $10,000 fine and civil forfeiture of the vehicle was deemed excessive by the judge, as it exceeded four times the penalty, violating the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on excessive fines.
Although the Court of Appeals upheld the ruling, the Indiana Supreme Court overturned it, arguing that the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on excessive fines only pertains to the federal government, not the states.
In a unanimous decision, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed that the Excessive Fines Clause indeed applies to the states as well.
Justice Ginsburg emphasized the historical significance of the Excessive Fines Clause, tracing its origins back to Magna Carta in 1215, which mandated that economic sanctions should be proportional to the offense committed.
Timbs v. Indiana marked a pivotal moment as the Supreme Court affirmed the application of the Eighth Amendment’s excessive fines clause to the states for the first time.
Susan Shelley highlighted in a recent opinion piece how the recognition of the Bill of Rights’ applicability to both federal and state levels could shield Trump from the state of New York.
Ginsburg’s understanding of the role of protection from excessive fines in safeguarding constitutional liberties underscores its importance. Excessive fines not only undermine fundamental freedoms but can also be wielded to suppress political dissent.
In light of the staggering judgment against him, Trump’s legal team may explore avenues rooted in constitutional protections, including Ginsburg’s precedent-setting opinion, as they navigate the legal complexities ahead.
