Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/22-166_8n59.pdf
Page Number: 20

Cite as:  598 U. S. ____ (2023) 

3 

GORSUCH, J., concurring 

the  Minnesota  tax-forfeiture  scheme  in  this  case  in  large 
part  because  “ ‘the  ultimate  possibility  of  loss  of  property 
serves as a deterrent to those taxpayers considering tax de-
linquency.’ ”  505  F. Supp.  3d,  at  899  (emphasis  added). 
Economic penalties imposed to deter willful noncompliance 
with the law are fines by any other name.  And the Consti-
tution has something to say about them:  They cannot be
excessive.