Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/524bv.pdf
Page Number: 372

524US2

Unit: $U89

[09-11-00 13:24:46] PAGES PGT: OPIN

Cite as: 524 U. S. 321 (1998)

327

Opinion of the Court

in United States Currency, 62 F. 3d 1161, 1167 (CA9 1995)).
The majority therefore held that § 982(a)(1) could never sat-
isfy the Excessive Fines Clause in cases involving forfeitures
of currency and that it was unnecessary to apply the “propor-
tionality” prong of the test. Although the panel majority
concluded that the Excessive Fines Clause did not permit
forfeiture of any of the unreported currency, it held that it
lacked jurisdiction to set the $15,000 forfeiture aside because
respondent had not cross-appealed to challenge that forfeit-
ure.

84 F. 3d, at 338.

Judge Wallace concurred in the result. He viewed re-
spondent’s currency as an instrumentality of the crime be-
cause “without the currency, there can be no offense,” id., at
339, and he criticized the majority for “strik[ing] down a por-
tion of ” the statute, id., at 338. He nonetheless agreed that
full forfeiture would violate the Excessive Fines Clause in
respondent’s case, based upon the “proportionality” prong of
the Ninth Circuit test. Finding no clear error in the Dis-
trict Court’s factual ﬁndings, he concluded that the reduced
forfeiture of $15,000 was proportional to respondent’s culpa-
bility.

Id., at 339–340.

Because the Court of Appeals’ holding––that the forfeiture
ordered by § 982(a)(1) was per se unconstitutional in cases of
currency forfeiture––invalidated a portion of an Act of Con-
gress, we granted certiorari.

520 U. S. 1239 (1997).

II

The Eighth Amendment provides: “Excessive bail shall
not be required, nor excessive ﬁnes imposed, nor cruel and
unusual punishments inﬂicted.” U. S. Const., Amdt. 8.
This Court has had little occasion to interpret, and has never
actually applied, the Excessive Fines Clause. We have,
however, explained that at
the time the Constitution
was adopted, “the word ‘ﬁne’ was understood to mean a
payment to a sovereign as punishment for some offense.”
Browning-Ferris Industries of Vt., Inc. v. Kelco Disposal,