Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/524bv.pdf
Page Number: 390

524US2

Unit: $U89

[09-11-00 13:24:47] PAGES PGT: OPIN

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

345

Kennedy, J., dissenting

harm suffered. Remedial penalties, the Court holds, are not
subject to the Excessive Fines Clause at all. See, e. g., ante,
at 342. Proceeding from this premise, the majority holds
customs ﬁnes are remedial and not at all punitive, even if
they amount to many times the duties due on the goods.
In the majority’s universe, a ﬁne is
See ante, at 341–344.
not a punishment even if it is much larger than the money
owed. This confuses whether a ﬁne is excessive with
whether it is a punishment.

This novel, mistaken approach requires reordering a tradi-
tion existing long before the Republic and conﬁrmed in its
early years. The Court creates its category to reconcile its
unprecedented holding with a six-century-long tradition of
in personam customs ﬁnes equal to one, two, three, or even
four times the value of the goods at issue. E. g., Cross v.
United States, 6 F. Cas. 892 (No. 3,434) (CC Mass. 1812)
(Story, J., Cir. J.); United States v. Riley, 88 F. 480 (SDNY
1898); United States v. Jordan, 26 F. Cas. 661 (No. 15,498)
(Mass. 1876); In re Vetterlein, 28 F. Cas. 1172 (No. 16,929)
(CC SDNY 1875); United States v. Hughes, 26 F. Cas. 417
(No. 15,417) (CC SDNY 1875); McGlinchy v. United States,
16 F. Cas. 118 (No. 8,803) (CC Me. 1875); United States v.
Hutchinson, 26 F. Cas. 446 (No. 15,431) (Me. 1868); Tariff Act
of 1930, § 497, 46 Stat. 728, as amended, 19 U. S. C. § 1497(a)
(failing to declare goods); Act of Mar. 3, 1863, § 1, 12 Stat.
738 (same); Act of Mar. 3, 1823, ch. 58, § 1, 3 Stat. 781 (import-
ing without a manifest); Act of Mar. 2, 1799, §§ 46, 79, 84, 1
Stat. 662, 687, 694 (failing to declare goods; failing to re-
export goods; making false entries on forms); Act of Aug. 4,
1790, §§ 10, 14, 22, 1 Stat. 156, 158, 161 (submitting incom-
plete manifests; unloading before customs; unloading duty-
free goods); Act of July 31, 1789, §§ 22, 25, 1 Stat. 42, 43
(using false invoices; buying uncustomed goods); King v.
Manning, 2 Comyns 616, 92 Eng. Rep. 1236 (K. B. 1738) (as-
sisting smugglers); 1 Eliz. 1, ch. 11, § 5 (1558–1559) (Eng.)
(declaring goods under wrong person’s name); 1 & 2 Phil. &