Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/524bv.pdf
Page Number: 400.0

524US2

Unit: $U89

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

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

355

Kennedy, J., dissenting

purposes of the ban on excessive ﬁnes was to prevent the
King from assessing unpayable ﬁnes to keep his enemies in
debtor’s prison. See Browning-Ferris Industries of Vt.,
Inc. v. Kelco Disposal, Inc., 492 U. S. 257, 267 (1989); 4 W.
Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England 373
(1769) (“[C]orporal punishment, or a stated imprisonment,
. . . is better than an excessive ﬁne, for that amounts to im-
prisonment for life. And this is the reason why ﬁnes in the
.”).
king’s court are frequently denominated ransoms .
Concern with imprisonment may explain why the Excessive
Fines Clause is coupled with, and follows right after, the
Excessive Bail Clause. While the concern is not implicated
here—for of necessity the money is there to satisfy the for-
feiture—the Court’s restrictive approach could subvert this
purpose. Under the Court’s holding, legislators may rely on
mandatory prison sentences in lieu of ﬁnes. Drug lords will
be heartened by this, knowing the prison terms will fall upon
their couriers while leaving their own wallets untouched.

.

At the very least, today’s decision will encourage legisla-
tures to take advantage of another avenue the majority
leaves open. The majority subjects this forfeiture to scru-
tiny because it is in personam, but it then suggests most in
rem forfeitures (and perhaps most civil forfeitures) may not
be ﬁnes at all. Ante, at 331, 340–341, and n. 16; but see ante,
at 331, n. 6. The suggestion, one might note, is inconsistent
or at least in tension with Austin v. United States, 509 U. S.
602 (1993).
In any event, these remarks may encourage a
legislative shift from in personam to in rem forfeitures,
avoiding mens rea as a predicate and giving owners fewer
procedural protections. By invoking the Excessive Fines
Clause with excessive zeal, the majority may in the long run
encourage Congress to circumvent it.

IV

The majority’s holding may not only jeopardize a vast
range of ﬁnes but also leave countless others unchecked by