The Supreme Court agreed Monday to hear Jouppi v. Alaska, the case of a pilot in Alaska whose plane was confiscated because there was beer in a passenger’s groceries.
The fight comes down to whether the punishment is proportionate to the crime – whether having a plane seized is out of whack with what the pilot actually did, or whether the government can weigh it against the government’s view of broader social harm (in a way that can justify almost any economic punishment, rendering constitutional limits meaningless).
- Alaska is permitted to punish people who illegally bring alcohol into communities that have voted to prohibit it. But there’s a constitutional problem with the punishment.
- The Eighth Amendment prohibits the government from imposing excessively high monetary fines or seizing property in a manner grossly disproportionate to the crime. Can the government say ‘alcohol is a scourge’ so any amount of alcohol justifies any seizure?
On April 3, 2012, bush pilot Ken Jouppi was preparing to fly a passenger and her groceries 110 miles from Fairbanks to Beaver, a small community that had voted to ban the sale, possession and importation of alcohol. The passenger had packed three cases of beer, totaling 72 cans or nine gallons, which were meant for her husband.
State troopers had been investigating the pilot and had a search warrant for the Cessna aircraft. They waited until it was loaded and about to take off, then descended on him. The beer never left Fairbanks. The pilot was convicted of the attempt to transport alcohol. He’s now represented by the Institute for Justice.
It’s not clear that the pilot, now 82 years old, even knew any alcohol was on board, though a state trooper testified that one six pack was visible through a grocery bag. The pilot says he didn’t search passengers’ belongings and didn’t know it was there.
He was sentenced to was 180 days (only 3 of which had to be served), a $3,000 fine (half of which was suspended) and given three years’ probation. That wasn’t the end of it, because the state went after his $95,000 1969 Cessna U206D.
This wasn’t even a felony (there was a 12-gallon threshold for that), but aircraft forfeiture is mandatory when used to facilitate illegal alcohol importation regardless of quantity and even for a first-time misdemeanor. That’s a harsher treatment than for cars, boats and snowmobiles.
- The trial court ordered forfeiture, then reconsidered and rejected it.
- The state appealed, and the court held that taking the entire $95,000 plane would be an excessive fine.
- A state appeals court wanted more facts – whether the pilot knew about six beers or 72, whether there was related misconduct, what harm he actually caused and whether the plane was important to his livelihood.
The Alaska Supreme Court concluded that none of that actually mattered, unanimously supporting the full forfeiture regardless even assuming the pilot knew about one six pack and had zero related misconduct. A final forfeiture was ordered in June 2025.
The state’s Supreme Court filing argues that he’s a repeat offender, which he disputes, but actually doesn’t matter – since the Alaska court said surrendering an aircraft, regardless of value would be justified no matter what the factual record.
The legal maximum fine was $10,000, and the state Supreme Court said forfeiting the plane was “only” 9.5 times that amount. (The actual fine paid in this case was $1,500 and the plane was worth 63 times that amount.) Alaska’s argument is that alcohol is bad, not that the particular alcohol the pilot flew caused any specific harms.
There’s a federal circuit split. The 9th circuit (which covers Alaska) supports the pilot, the 11th circuit doesn’t. So in Alaska, a pilot can have his plane taken for a single beer packed onboard that’s headed for a dry community if he’s tried in state court but not in federal court. It seems like the relevant precedent here is United States v. Bajakajian.
- A man tried to leave the country with $357,144 in cash, but failed to file the required currency report. You don’t just have to declare more than $10,000 cash when you arrive. You have to declare it when you depart, too, even though there’s no checkpoint for that (you have to go find customs at the airport from which you’re flying out of the country and submit the form).
- All the money came from lawful sources. There was no connection to any crime.
- The Supreme Court said that taking all of it would be grossly disproportionate to the crime of failing to fill out the FinCen form.
- In that case, arguing that currency reporting laws are part of fighting money laundering and other crimes, so significant forfeitures are proportional to the overall social harm of the conduct with which this was part did not work. It’s exactly the same argument Alaska is making.
I have written extensively about civil asset forfeiture at airports where law enforcement takes cash without charging the traveler and forces the owner to prove the money’s innocence through a byzantine process.
Ironically, Alaska Airlines was just fined only $165,000 for allowing intoxicated passengers to board 11 flights in violation of federal rules. Their planes weren’t taken, but the flights weren’t to a dry town.
This case is about a criminal forfeiture after a conviction. But the punishment still has to fit the crime. The case is expected to be heard during the Court’s upcoming term, with a decision by June 2027.
This country is evidently a governed “of the assholes, by the assholes for the assholes”. A big middle finger to “The People”.
I recall that light aircraft are practically the only way to get around ‘the frontier’ in Alaska (no roads), so… but, IJ is a libertarian group, so… if this isn’t a yet another Trojan horse of a case, maybe, Thomas and Gorsuch could even be joined by the 3 liberal justices in voting against state police overreach and disproportionate criminal penalties… wild group that’d be! It would seem that no law enforcement should be seizing $100K in assets over $1,500 in misdemeanors. Disproportionate.
@1990, Thomas is fine with shooting people over minor violations, he just doesn’t like their property being seized.
@Jon F — Yeah …he does seem to have peculiar ‘views’ on what (or, whom *gulp*) is considered “property” (…wild, given, well, you know, umm, let’s say, our ‘history’ as a nation.)
The Eighteenth Amendment (i.e. prohibition) was repealed in 1933. The idea that a municipality can ban the possession of booze by adults is ludicrous. The Constitution cannot be overridden by municipal laws (you could make an argument that banning the sale of booze via restrictive zoning is within the powers of a municipality).
And seizing a $95,000 plane for the actions of a paying passenger is even more ludicrous.
The Alaska Supreme Court has a permanent, virtually unassailable lock by the Far Left, due to an odd Alaska law. A body called the Alaska Judicial Council is an unelected, seven-member body made up of three members appointed by the governor and approved by the Legislature, three members appointed by the Alaska Bar Association, and the chief justice of the Alaska Supreme Court. Because the Alaska Bar Association is Far Left, their three members are. The Chief Justice of the Alaska Supreme Court is chosen by a majority vote of the five justices on the court (by definition also Far Left). Bottom line: The Far Left always enjoys (at minimum) a 4-3 majority over conservatives on the Alaska Supreme Court itself as well as during the vetting process. This aircraft verdict is consistent with their partisan views.
Except Jason, the 21st amendment repealed the 18th and included this:
“Section 2. The transportation or importation into any State, Territory, or possession of the United States for delivery or use therein of intoxicating liquors, in violation of the laws thereof, is hereby prohibited.”
It is widely held this ensures states broad right to limit sales, possessing, transportation, etc. into and within their state.
losing your means of income over 3 cases of beer and having your $95,000 plane confiscated for transporting a legal substance? Makes perfect sense in our upside down world.
@TexasTJ — There is nothing ‘Far Left’ here. At all.
Facts: 4 of the 5 current justices on the Alaska Supreme Court were appointed by a conservative Republican Governor, and this ruling was a unanimous 5–0 decision.
(Unless, of course, you’re talking strictly geography? Sure, it’s ‘left’ of the lower 48, though once you hit the Aleutians crossing the International Date Line, it becomes undeniably Far Right. /s)
@1990: The alleged “facts” that you provide are grossly incorrect. The Alaska Governor merely chooses from a specific list of nominees that the Alaska Judicial Council provides (100 % of which are Far Left). As a result, the Alaska Supreme Court is in fact Far Left.
@TexasTJ — So, your argument is that *Republican* Governor of a *red* state has spent years dutifully rubber-stamping ‘Far Left’ judges handed to him by a ‘Far Left’ cabal, and that a bench of five ‘Far Left’ activists unanimously decided to… rigidly enforce a state law against bootlegging?
*circus music playing in the background*
The real question is not whether the penalty is disproportionate (it is) but rather why we still allow “dry towns” in this country. Live and let live, don’t tread on me. If I want a beer I will damn well have it.
@Boraxo — Or, since we’re talkin’ aviation… Live and let’s fly… @Matthew Klint, where you at?!
@Jason Wrong:
Thee 21st amend. repealed the 18th amend., eliminating prohibition.
HOWEVER, there was a clause written in it that enables cities and counties to outlaw the sale of alcohol. So, in that city in Alaska was legal when it banned the sale of alcohol.
What’s so unusual about “dry” cities and counties. Texas still has 3 dry counties. It’s their choice and it is a state and local government right to govern. (BTW, drinking beer in Colorado when 18 years old was also legal…however, it was 3.2 beer which is slightly stringer than old orange juice)
@TexasTJ – As a result, the Alaska Supreme Court is in fact Far Left.
Great claims require great evidence. Prove it. Hell, prove any Bar Association is “far left”. And define “far left” while you’re at it, because the “far left” is the domain of anarchists, and, considering their line of work, lawyers aren’t typically anarchists. They’re rather diametrically opposed by personal belief. Disagreeing with your personal politics doesn’t make someone “far left”.
@One Trippe — Slightly less vitamin C though…
Based on the state analysis A AK state officer who has beer in this vehicle as evidnce would also be arreested and the state patrol car be taken.
@1990: It’s unfortunate that you cannot admit when you are ridiculously wrong. Even the well-left-of-center Google states the following on the Governor’s Role: “The governor has exactly 45 days to appoint one of the nominees from that shortlist [created solely by the the Alaska Judicial Council]. If the governor disagrees with the council’s choices, they cannot appoint someone from outside the provided list; they must select one of the vetted names presented”. Full Stop, your disparaging remarks are unwelcome.
@TexasTJ — As Inigo Montoya said: “You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.”
@1990, maybe you just need to admit that you are wrong.
@TexasTJ — Keep projecting…
@1990: You still haven’t made a cogent argument why you are right and Google is wrong.
@TexasTJ — Because Google (and even the peanut gallery on here) all say you’re wrong.
(Wait, shall we ‘Bing’ this, next?)
*circus music intensifies*