## Facts

- Richard Lyle Austin pleaded guilty in South Dakota state court to possessing cocaine with intent to distribute and was sentenced to seven years’ imprisonment.
- The United States filed a federal in rem civil forfeiture action against Austin’s mobile home and auto body shop under 21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(4) and (a)(7).
- The government alleged Austin brought cocaine from his mobile home to his body shop to complete a prearranged drug sale there.
- Austin argued that forfeiture of both properties violated the Eighth Amendment’s Excessive Fines Clause.

## Issues

1. Whether the Eighth Amendment’s Excessive Fines Clause applies to statutory in rem civil forfeitures under 21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(4) and (a)(7).
2. If the Clause applies, whether forfeiture of Austin’s mobile home and auto body shop is constitutionally excessive.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed the Eighth Circuit and held that the Excessive Fines Clause applies to forfeitures under § 881(a)(4) and (a)(7).
- The Court concluded these forfeitures are monetary punishment at least in part and therefore fall within the Clause.
- The Court remanded for determination, in the first instance, whether the forfeiture sought was excessive.
- Justice Scalia concurred in part and in the judgment, emphasizing excessiveness should focus on the property’s relationship to the offense.
- Justice Kennedy, joined by the Chief Justice and Justice Thomas, concurred in part and in the judgment, cautioning against broad statements that all in rem forfeitures punish owners.

## Legal Principles

- The civil or criminal label of a sanction is not dispositive for Excessive Fines Clause purposes; the controlling question is whether the sanction is punitive.
- A forfeiture is subject to the Excessive Fines Clause if it can be explained, at least in part, as serving to punish.
- Forfeitures under 21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(4) and (a)(7) are punitive in part because they are tied to drug offenses and are not limited to compensating the government for actual loss or costs.
- When the Excessive Fines Clause applies, courts must assess whether the forfeiture is constitutionally excessive, though this case did not set a comprehensive excessiveness test.

## Conclusion

The Court held that in rem forfeitures under 21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(4) and (a)(7) constitute monetary punishment at least in part and are therefore constrained by the Eighth Amendment’s Excessive Fines Clause, requiring further proceedings to decide whether forfeiture of Austin’s properties was excessive.


Austin v. United States, 509 U.S. 602 (1993)