Supreme Court to review Alaska plane seizure over six-pack of beer

The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case involving an Alaska bush pilot who claims state authorities are attempting to illegally seize his $95,000 airplane. The seizure stems from a passenger bringing a six-pack of beer on a flight to a village with alcohol restrictions.

“

I'm thrilled that the U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear this case, because this case isn't just about me or my airplane anymore. I'm in my 80s now, and I've been fighting this for over a decade because I see it as my duty to ensure that the Bill of Rights actually means something in protecting against government overreach.

Pilot Kenneth Jouppi sued to block the forfeiture of his 1969 Cessna after being convicted of a misdemeanor charge related to transporting alcohol. While the Alaska Supreme Court sided with the state, ruling the plane subject to criminal forfeiture laws, Jouppi is now taking his argument to the nation's highest court.

Jouppi contends that seizing his aircraft would violate the Eighth Amendment's "Excessive Fines Clause." His attorneys, from the Institute for Justice, highlight that the case is about more than just his plane, emphasizing the need to protect against government overreach. Jouppi, in his 80s, has been fighting this for over a decade, seeing it as a duty to uphold the Bill of Rights.

“

A message that if you do it (help alcohol smugglers) and get caught, you lose your airplane. A message that it's not worth it.

The incident occurred in April 2012 when state troopers found a six-pack of beer in a passenger's luggage before Jouppi's flight from Fairbanks to Beaver, a dry village. Jouppi, his company, and the passenger were charged. The passenger pleaded guilty, and a jury convicted Jouppi. A judge sentenced him to jail time, suggesting a message needed to be sent to pilots about the consequences of aiding alcohol smugglers.

“

Few excessive fines cases will present the issue so sharply; a decision upholding the forfeiture of an airplane for a six-pack is a self-recommending candidate for review.

Jouppi's legal team argues that the Alaska Supreme Court did not adequately consider whether his conduct was part of a broader criminal pattern, focusing instead on abstract terms. They believe the case sharply presents the issue of excessive fines, making the forfeiture of an airplane for a small amount of beer a clear candidate for review.

“

Courts