The Institute for Justice has announced it is heading to the U.S. Supreme Court to try to overturn a local fine in Alaska of $95,000 over a banned six-pack of beer.

“The Excessive Fines Clause of the constitution was built for cases like this,” said Sam Gedge, a senior attorney at the IJ. “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.”

The penalty is coming against pilot Ken Jouppi, who had ferried passengers, groceries and more around the state for years.

On April 3, 2012, “he was ferrying a passenger and her groceries from Fairbanks to the village of Beaver,” the IJ said. “But hidden in the passenger’s luggage were three cases of beer—two Budweiser, one Bud Light—intended as a gift to her husband, the local postmaster.”

The problem was that Beaver, in 2004, voted to ban alcohol entirely.

Before Ken could take off, state troopers searched the plane and discovered the beer. Ken was charged with a misdemeanor and convicted, the IJ said.

Then the state launched a full-blown war against him.

For years, prosecutors have also been trying to forfeit his airplane, a Cessna U206D, worth about $95,000, and just weeks ago, the Alaska Supreme Court ruled that even had Ken known only about one six-pack of his passenger’s beer, his argument that the fine was excessive failed.

“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,” the IJ said.

That fight was over the state-demanded forfeiture of a $40,000 Land Rover over a low-level drug offense, a scheme that was found by the Supreme Court to be unconstitutionally excessive.

“This case isn’t just about me or my airplane anymore,” Ken said in a statement released by his lawyers. “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.”