Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/524bv.pdf
Page Number: 389

524US2

Unit: $U89

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

344

UNITED STATES v. BAJAKAJIAN

Kennedy, J., dissenting

the full forfeiture mandated by § 982(a)(1) in this case serves
no remedial purpose; it is clearly punishment. The customs
statutes enacted by the First Congress, therefore, in no way
suggest that § 982(a)(1)’s currency forfeiture is constitution-
ally proportional.

*

*

*

For the foregoing reasons, the full forfeiture of respond-
ent’s currency would violate the Excessive Fines Clause.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is

Afﬁrmed.

Justice Kennedy, with whom The Chief Justice, Jus-

tice O(cid:146)Connor, and Justice Scalia join, dissenting.

For the ﬁrst time in its history, the Court strikes down a
ﬁne as excessive under the Eighth Amendment. The deci-
sion is disturbing both for its speciﬁc holding and for the
broader upheaval it foreshadows. At issue is a ﬁne Con-
gress ﬁxed in the amount of the currency respondent sought
to smuggle or to transport without reporting.
If a ﬁne cali-
brated with this accuracy fails the Court’s test, its decision
portends serious disruption of a vast range of statutory ﬁnes.
The Court all but says the offense is not serious anyway.
This disdain for the statute is wrong as an empirical matter
and disrespectful of the separation of powers. The irony of
the case is that, in the end, it may stand for narrowing consti-
tutional protection rather than enhancing it. To make its
rationale work, the Court appears to remove important
classes of ﬁnes from any excessiveness inquiry at all. This,
too, is unsound; and with all respect, I dissent.

I
A

In striking down this forfeiture, the majority treats many
ﬁnes as “remedial” penalties even though they far exceed the

“punishment”), is clearly punitive––“would have to [be treated] as nonpu-
nitive,” post, at 346.