A state’s decision to fine a pilot more than $95,000 for an incident where a passenger brought some beer on board his air taxi now is facing review at the U.S. Supreme Court.
It is the Institute for Justice that has been fighting, for about a decade, on behalf of Ken Jouppi.
What happened was that Jouppi, who flies his Cessna across the Alaskan wilderness, shuttling locals and tourists who depend on bush pilots like him, scheduled a flight in 2012. He was taking a woman, and her groceries, home to a nearby village.
However, state troopers found Budweiser tucked in a passenger’s luggage scheduled for that flight.
The passenger, and Jouppi, each faced misdemeanor charges and a $1,500 fine plus three days in jail.
That’s because the destination town, several years before, had voted to ban alcohol, and there were no exceptions allowed for the passenger, who was taken a modest supply privately to the town as a gift for her husband, a local postmaster.
But not satisfied with the fine and other punishments, the state demand that Jouppi forfeit his $95,000 airplane.
“Ken is in his 80s now and he is still fighting,” the IJ confirmed, the state’s “excessive fine.”
“The Excessive Fines Clause of the Constitution was built for cases like this,” said Sam Gedge, a senior attorney at the Institute for Justice. “As government agencies increasingly exploit fines and forfeitures to pad their budgets, it’s vital that the Supreme Court make clear that the Excessive Fines Clause is a meaningful check on government overreach. We’re confident that it will do so here.”
The U.S. Supreme Court now has agreed, as part of its oversight of state court agendas, to review the decision from the Alaska Supreme Court that a beer offense was enough support to validate the $95,000 fine.
“[T]he illegal importation of even a six-pack of beer causes grave societal harm,” that state court claimed in its agenda on the case. That means, the $95,000 fine “does not violate the Excessive Fines Clause.”
In 2012, Ken Jouppi was charged with a misdemeanor after a passenger on his plane was caught with a 6-pack of beer, en route to a dry county.
Since then, the state has been trying to forfeit Ken’s plane.
Today, the #SupremeCourt agreed to hear his case.
pic.twitter.com/5cC612TCiO
— Institute for Justice (@IJ) July 20, 2026
“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,” said Ken. “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.”
Other decisions, including those by the Supreme Court, undermine the state’s stated agenda. In 2019 the court decided in Timbs v. Indiana that the Excessive Fines Clause applies not just to the federal government, but to states as well.
There, state officials insisted Tyson Timbs forfeit a $40,000 vehicle over a low-level drug offense, but the high court ruled that excessive.
“The Excessive Fines Clause enshrines a timeless principle: The fine must fit the crime,” said IJ Attorney Mike Greenberg. “Protection against excessive fines is one of our most critical constitutional safeguards, and it’s critical that the U.S. Supreme Court instruct lower courts to treat that right with the importance it deserves.”
WorldNetDaily reported a year ago when the IJ said it would take the case to the Supreme Court.
At that time, the IJ said, “The Alaska Supreme Court’s ruling puts it at odds with other courts around the country. Most notably, in Timbs v. Indiana—a case litigated by the Institute for Justice—the U.S. Supreme Court in 2019 held the Excessive Fines Clause applies, not just to the federal government, but to states as well.”
Continue reading...
[ H/T WorldNetDaily ]
