Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/524bv.pdf
Page Number: 391

524US2

Unit: $U89

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

346

UNITED STATES v. BAJAKAJIAN

Kennedy, J., dissenting

M., ch. 5, §§ 1, 3 (1554–1555) (Eng.) (exporting food without
a license; exporting more food than the license allowed); 5
Rich. 2, Stat. 1, chs. 2, 3 (1381) (Eng.) (exporting gold or
silver without a license; using ships other than those of the
King’s allegiance).

In order to sweep all these precedents aside, the majority’s
remedial analysis assumes the settled tradition was limited
to “reimbursing the Government for” unpaid duties. Ante,
at 342. The assumption is wrong. Many offenses did not
require a failure to pay a duty at all. See, e. g., Act of Mar.
3, 1863, § 1, 12 Stat. 738 (importing under false invoices); Act
of Mar. 3, 1823, ch. 58, § 1, 3 Stat. 781 (failing to deliver ship’s
manifest); Act of Mar. 2, 1799, § 28, 1 Stat. 648 (transferring
goods from one ship to another); Act of Aug. 4, 1790, § 14, 1
Stat. 158 (same); 5 Rich. II, st. 1, ch. 2 (1381) (Eng.) (export-
ing gold or silver without a license). None of these in perso-
nam penalties depended on a compensable monetary loss to
the Government. True, these offenses risked causing harm,
ante, at 342–343, n. 17, but so does smuggling or not report-
ing cash. A sanction proportioned to potential rather than
actual harm is punitive, though the potential harm may make
the punishment a reasonable one. See TXO Production
Corp. v. Alliance Resources Corp., 509 U. S. 443, 460–462
(1993) (opinion of Stevens, J.). The majority nonetheless
treats the historic penalties as nonpunitive and thus not sub-
ject to the Excessive Fines Clause, though they are indistin-
guishable from the ﬁne in this case.
(It is a mark of the
Court’s doctrinal difﬁculty that we must speak of nonpuni-
tive penalties, which is a contradiction in terms.)

Even if the majority’s typology were correct, it would have
to treat the instant penalty as nonpunitive.
In this respect,
the Court cannot distinguish the case on which it twice re-
lies, One Lot Emerald Cut Stones v. United States, 409 U. S.
232 (1972) (per curiam). Ante, at 329, 343. Emerald
Stones held forfeiture of smuggled goods plus a ﬁne equal to
their value was remedial and not punitive, for purposes of