Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/524bv.pdf
Page Number: 393

524US2

Unit: $U89

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

348

UNITED STATES v. BAJAKAJIAN

Kennedy, J., dissenting

and incidental objects, when the Court invokes the distinc-
tion it gets the results backwards.

II

Turning to the question of excessiveness, the majority
states the test: A defendant must prove a gross dispropor-
tion before a court will strike down a ﬁne as excessive. See
ante, at 334. This test would be a proper way to apply the
Clause, if only the majority were faithful in applying it. The
Court does not, however, explain why in this case forfeiture
of all of the cash would have suffered from a gross dispropor-
tion. The offense is a serious one, and respondent’s smug-
gling and failing to report were willful. The cash was lawful
to own, but this fact shows only that the forfeiture was a
ﬁne; it cannot also prove that the ﬁne was excessive.

The majority illuminates its test with a principle of defer-
ence. Courts “ ‘should grant substantial deference to the
broad authority that legislatures necessarily possess’ ” in
setting punishments. Ante, at 336 (quoting Solem v. Helm,
463 U. S. 277, 290 (1983)). Again, the principle is sound
but the implementation is not. The majority’s assessment
of the crime accords no deference,
let alone substantial
deference, to the judgment of Congress. Congress deems
the crime serious, but the Court does not. Under the con-
gressional statute, the crime is punishable by a prison sen-
tence, a heavy ﬁne, and the forfeiture here at issue. As the
statute makes clear, the Government needs the information
to investigate other serious crimes, and it needs the penalties
to ensure compliance.

A

By afﬁrming, the majority in effect approves a meager
$15,000 forfeiture. The majority’s holding purports to be
narrower, saying only that forfeiture of the entire $357,144
would be excessive. Ante, at 337, and n. 11. This narrow
holding is artiﬁcial in constricting the question presented
for this Court’s review. The statute mandates forfeiture of