Timbs v. Indiana (2019)

Citation: 586 U.S. 146 (No. 17-1091) · Court: Supreme Court of the United States · Decided: February 20, 2019 (argued November 28, 2018) · Opinion: Ginsburg, J., for the Court (joined by Roberts, C.J., and Breyer, Alito, Sotomayor, Kagan, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh, JJ.); Gorsuch, J., concurring; Thomas, J., concurring in the judgment.

Facts

Tyson Timbs pleaded guilty in Indiana to dealing in a controlled substance and conspiracy to commit theft. Police had seized a Land Rover SUV he bought for about USD 42,000 with life-insurance proceeds from his father’s death. The State sought civil forfeiture, alleging the SUV was used to transport heroin. The trial court denied forfeiture as grossly disproportionate, noting the vehicle cost more than four times the maximum USD 10,000 fine for his offense; the Indiana Supreme Court reversed, holding that the Excessive Fines Clause constrains only federal action.

Holding

“The Eighth Amendment’s Excessive Fines Clause is an incorporated protection applicable to the States under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.” (Syllabus.) In the opinion: “The Fourteenth Amendment, we hold, incorporates this protection.” The judgment was vacated and the case remanded.

Reasoning

The protection against excessive fines is “fundamental to our scheme of ordered liberty,” with “dee[p] root[s] in [our] history and tradition,” tracing to Magna Carta; once incorporated, there is “no daylight between the federal and state conduct it prohibits or requires.” (Opinion and syllabus.)

Practical impact

• A State’s forfeiture of a vehicle or equipment that is punitive in part is subject to an Excessive Fines Clause proportionality challenge. The case did not itself decide whether the Land Rover’s forfeiture was excessive.
• For buyers, a pending excessive-fines challenge is a reason a forfeiture may not yet be final; property is ordinarily sold only after a final forfeiture order or declaration.

Good-law status

Still good law.

Applies in →

All States (incorporation). See forfeiture-and-government-seizure-sales, motor-vehicles.

Sources

• {case, https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/586/17-1091/, retrieved 2026-10-16} — Timbs v. Indiana: syllabus, opinion, vote line.
• {case index, https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/search/?q=caseName:(Timbs%20v.%20Indiana)&type=o&court=scotus, retrieved 2026-10-16} — corroborates citation 586 U.S. 146 and decision date February 20, 2019.

Disclaimer. This page is legal information, not legal advice. It summarizes a court decision that may have been limited or distinguished by later authority. Nothing here creates an attorney-client relationship. Read the full opinion and consult a licensed attorney before acting.