Opinion ID: 612487
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Constitutional Violation Claims

Text: Khanjee contends that the district court's imposition of civil penalties violates the separation of powers doctrine, the Appointments Clause, and the Excessive Fines Clause of the Eighth Amendment. But Khanjee did not develop its separation of powers or Appointments Clause arguments before the district court, [3] and it has therefore waived them. Taubenfeld v. Aon Corp., 415 F.3d 597, 599 (7th Cir. 2005). Only Khanjee's Excessive Fines argument warrants additional discussion. Khanjee admits in its reply that this is the first time Khanjee has cited the Excessive Fines Clause, but states that there was no clear indication that the Clause would be relevant until the district court issued its decision. There is authority for the proposition that an Excessive Fines challenge is not ripe until the imposition, or immediately impending imposition, of a challenged punishment or fine. See Cheffer v. Reno, 55 F.3d 1517, 1523-24 (11th Cir.1995). However, we are still unpersuaded by Khanjee's contention that it could not have presented its Excessive Fines challenge to the district court. As Khanjee admits later in its reply, its argument is that a fine of any size [against Khanjee] is excessive. Khanjee could have, but did not, make that argument to the district court, in response to Sierra Club's motion for civil penalties. At that time, the imposition of the penalty was immediately impending, and Khanjee's claim was ripe.