An Alaska bush pilot is taking the state’s effort to forfeit his $95,000 Cessna to the Supreme Court. In a brief filed Thursday, Sept. 3, Kenneth Jouppi, 83, argued that forfeiting the aircraft over a misdemeanor involving beer intended for a dry village would violate the Eighth Amendment’s Excessive Fines Clause.
The filing comes after the justices agreed July 20 to hear Jouppi v. Alaska, which asks whether courts must consider a defendant’s specific conduct when deciding if a forfeiture is constitutionally excessive, according to the court docket.
Jouppi was preparing to fly a passenger from Fairbanks to Beaver, Alaska, in 2012 when state troopers searched the aircraft before departure and found 72 cans of beer among the passenger’s belongings. Beaver prohibits alcohol importation. Jouppi said he did not know the beer was aboard, while some testimony and exhibits indicated that at least one six-pack was visible as he loaded the airplane.
An Alaska jury convicted Jouppi under the state law prohibiting the knowing transport of alcohol into a dry community. Under the law, transport also includes attempted delivery or transfer, according to the state opinion.
Forfeiture Challenge
“The Excessive Fines Clause was built for cases like this,” Jouppi’s attorneys wrote in Thursday’s brief.
They argue that courts should evaluate the gravity of a defendant’s particular conduct when deciding whether a forfeiture is excessive. Jouppi was a first-time offender and was sentenced to 180 days in jail with 177 suspended, a $3,000 fine with $1,500 suspended and three years of probation. A trial court later valued his 1969 Cessna U206D at $95,000 and found forfeiture of the airplane unconstitutionally excessive.
The dispute has continued through Alaska’s appellate courts for more than a decade. The Alaska Supreme Court ruled in April 2025 that forfeiture of the aircraft would not be grossly disproportionate to the offense. The court found that aircraft forfeiture was a punitive sanction subject to the Excessive Fines Clause, then concluded it passed the required proportionality analysis.
Alaska Court Upholds Forfeiture
“Within this context, it is clear that the illegal importation of even a six-pack of beer causes grave societal harm,” The Alaska Supreme Court wrote in its opinion.
The court cited the effects of alcohol abuse in rural Alaska and said state lawmakers intended aircraft forfeiture to deter illegal alcohol importation into communities that prohibit it. The court said its conclusion would remain the same whether Jouppi was culpable for all 72 beers or only the six clearly visible beers.
Question Before Justices
Jouppi’s Supreme Court brief argues that the Alaska court placed too much weight on alcohol-related harm statewide instead of the circumstances of his offense. His attorneys also note that the aircraft’s $95,000 value was 9.5 times the $10,000 maximum monetary fine applicable to the misdemeanor.
The Supreme Court will consider whether courts may assess the gravity of an offense in the abstract when applying the Excessive Fines Clause or must account for the specific defendant’s wrongdoing. The docket has not yet listed an oral argument date.
0 replies