Podcasts about excessive fines clause

Welcome to Supreme Court Opinions. In this episode, you'll hear the Court's opinion in Tyler v Hennepin County. In this case, the court considered these issues: First, does taking and selling a home to satisfy a debt to the government, and keeping the surplus value as a windfall, violate the Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause? Second, is the forfeiture of property worth far more than needed to satisfy a debt a fine within the meaning of the Eighth Amendment? The case was decided on May 25, 2023. The Supreme Court held that taking and selling a home to satisfy a debt to the government, and keeping the surplus value as a windfall, violates the Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause. Chief Justice John Roberts authored the unanimous opinion of the Court holding that Tyler plausibly alleged that Hennepin County's actions violated the Takings Clause and thus that her claim can go forward. The Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment, applicable to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment, prohibits the government from taking private property without “just compensation.” This does not prevent the government from collecting taxes, or from taking action to enforce the collection of taxes. However, the government may not, as Minnesota purported to do by statute in 1935, extinguish a property owner's interest in property when she falls behind on her property taxes. English law, from which the U.S. Constitution derives much meaning, has long proscribed the taking of more from a taxpayer than she owes. Moreover, Supreme Court precedents and Minnesota law itself, in other contexts, recognize the principle that a taxpayer is entitled to the surplus in excess of the debt owed. Justice Neil Gorsuch authored a concurring opinion, in which Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson joined, addressing the second question presented, which the majority declined to address. In Justice Gorsuch's view, Hennepin County's actions likely also violate the Eighth Amendment's Excessive Fines Clause. The opinion is presented here in its entirety, but with citations omitted. If you appreciate this episode, please subscribe. Thank you.  --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/scotus-opinions/support

Thursday January 26, 2023 - The United Supreme Court declined certiorari on the case Toth vs. United States. Certiorari is the process by which an appellate court has the discretion to review decisions made by trial courts. Becase the Supreme Court refused to hear this case the appellate court's decision stands. And that decision stinks! I think a clear violation of the Eighth Amendment to the Constituion. The Eight Amendment simply says "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted." Justice Gorsuch dissented from the denial of certiorari. Monica Toth, an American citizen who failed to report a foreign bank account as required by law. The Internal Revenue Service assessed a civil penalty against Ms. Toth for her failure to report, which she argued violated her rights under the Excessive Fines Clause of the Eighth Amendment. Justice Gorsuch noted that protection against excessive punitive economic sanctions is “fundamental” and “deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition". He further argued that it would be wrong for governments to evade constitutional scrutiny by labeling fines as "civil" rather than "criminal". In addition, he pointed out other reasons why taking up this case was worth consideration such as incentivizing governments to impose exorbitant civil penalties and clashing with original understanding of Eighth Amendment. Some Judges write for other Judges to help them understand the legal basis for a certain ruling, or even provide their own interpretation of an existing law. This can help inform future decisions on similar cases, since the opinion can serve as precedent. Some judges write with lawyers in mind, crafting legal opinions that are complex and highly technical, so that attorneys can use them as powerful tools when advocating for their clients. Some judges write for the public, with the intention of making legal opinions easier to understand and more accessible to a wider audience. Justice Gorsuch writes for the public. Attorney Steven A. Leahy reviews Justice Gorsuch's opinion on Today's Tax Talk. https://reason.com/2022/08/30/this-grandmother-didnt-submit-the-proper-banking-form-now-the-irs-wants-2-1-million-from-her/ https://reason.com/2023/01/23/supreme-court-declines-case-challenging-excessive-irs-penalties/ https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/us-supreme-courts-gorsuch-dissent-calls-217-mln-tax-penalty-excessive-2023-01-23/ https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/supreme-court-punt-in-tax-fine-case-leaves-uncertainty-in-wake --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/steven-leahy1/message

Today on Legalese we will be taking a look at the legalized armed robbery that constitutes "Home Equity Theft”. Last week, the Supreme Court agreed to grant cert on the merits for the case "Tyler v. City of Minneapolis". This case challenges the constitutionality of a Minnesota state law empowering local governments to seize the entire value of a property in order to pay off a much smaller delinquent property tax debt. The property owner in the case—93-year-old widow Geraldine Tyler—argues that this kind of uncompensated seizure of home equity violates the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment, which requires government to pay "just compensation" anytime it takes private property, and the Excessive Fines Clause of the Eighth Amendment. So how does home equity theft actually work? How does the government justify this policy which stands in clear contravention to the 5th and 8th amendment's takings clause & excessive fines clause (respectively). We will discuss the likely outcome of the case as well as the broader implications that this potential landmark 5th amendment case will have. Creation, Consent, and Government Power over Property Rights Hall v. Meisner, Sixth Circuit Opinion (2022) Tyler v. Hennepin County, Eighth Circuit Opinion (2021) Pacific Legal Foundation Tyler v. Hennepin County: Summary of Fact (Pacific Legal Foundation) Tyler v. Hennepin County Cert Petition FOLLOW · Show Homepage · Rumble · Odysee · YouTube · Anchor · Twitter · Substack SUPPORT · PayPal.me · Venmo · Locals · Contact Me Legale§e is a subscriber-supported project. Please consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. “Constitutional Sleight Of Hand: An explicit history of implied powers” Now Available on Amazon Legalese is a podcast that discusses all things constitutional law as well as current events in politics and other areas of law. Tags: Law, Constitution, Politics, legal theory, Moral Philosophy, Current Events, supreme court, equity asset theft, 5th amendment, 8th amendment, takings clause, excessive fines clause, Geraldine Tyler, Tawanda hall, 6th circuit, 8th circuit, property rights, taxes, Minneapolis, Hennepin County --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/legaleseshow/message Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/legaleseshow/support

Procedural due process When the government seeks to burden a person's protected liberty interest or property interest, the Supreme Court has held that procedural due process requires that, at a minimum, the government provide the person notice, an opportunity to be heard at an oral hearing, and a decision by a neutral decision-maker. For example, such a process is due when a government agency seeks to terminate civil service employees, expel a student from public school, or cut off a welfare recipient's benefits. The Court has also ruled that the Due Process Clause requires judges to recuse themselves in cases where the judge has a conflict of interest. For example, in Caperton v A T Massey Coal Company (2009), the Court ruled that a justice of the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia had to recuse himself from a case involving a major contributor to his campaign for election to that court. Incorporation. While many state constitutions are modeled after the United States Constitution and federal laws, those state constitutions did not necessarily include provisions comparable to the Bill of Rights. In Barron v Baltimore (1833), the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the Bill of Rights restrained only the federal government, not the states. However, the Supreme Court has subsequently held that most provisions of the Bill of Rights apply to the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment under a doctrine called "incorporation". Whether incorporation was intended by the amendment's framers, such as John Bingham, has been debated by legal historians. According to legal scholar Akhil Reed Amar, the framers and early supporters of the Fourteenth Amendment believed that it would ensure that the states would be required to recognize the same individual rights as the federal government; all these rights were likely understood as falling within the "privileges or immunities" safeguarded by the amendment. By the latter half of the 20th century, nearly all of the rights in the Bill of Rights had been applied to the states. The Supreme Court has held that the amendment's Due Process Clause incorporates all of the substantive protections of the First, Second, Fourth, Fifth (except for its Grand Jury Clause) and Sixth Amendments, along with the Excessive Fines Clause and Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause of the Eighth Amendment. While the Third Amendment has not been applied to the states by the Supreme Court, the Second Circuit ruled that it did apply to the states within that circuit's jurisdiction in Engblom v Carey. The Seventh Amendment right to jury trial in civil cases has been held not to be applicable to the states, but the amendment's Re-Examination Clause does apply to "a case tried before a jury in a state court and brought to the Supreme Court on appeal". The Excessive Fines Clause of the Eighth Amendment became the last right to be incorporated when the Supreme Court ruled in Timbs v Indiana (2019) that right to apply to the states. Equal Protection Clause

Privileges or Immunities Clause. The Privileges or Immunities Clause, which protects the privileges and immunities of national citizenship from interference by the states, was patterned after the Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article IV, which protects the privileges and immunities of state citizenship from interference by other states. In the Slaughter-House Cases (1873), the Supreme Court concluded that the Constitution recognized two separate types of citizenship—"national citizenship" and "state citizenship"—and the Court held that the Privileges or Immunities Clause prohibits states from interfering only with privileges and immunities possessed by virtue of national citizenship. The Court concluded that the privileges and immunities of national citizenship included only those rights that "owe their existence to the Federal government, its National character, its Constitution, or its laws". The Court recognized few such rights, including access to sea-ports and navigable waterways, the right to run for federal office, the protection of the federal government while on the high seas or in the jurisdiction of a foreign country, the right to travel to the seat of government, the right to peaceably assemble and petition the government, the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, and the right to participate in the government's administration. This decision has not been overruled and has been specifically reaffirmed several times. Largely as a result of the narrowness of the Slaughter-House opinion, this clause subsequently lay dormant for well over a century. In Saenz v Roe (1999), the Court ruled that a component of the "right to travel" is protected by the Privileges or Immunities Clause: Despite fundamentally differing views concerning the coverage of the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, most notably expressed in the majority and dissenting opinions in the Slaughter-House Cases (1873), it has always been common ground that this Clause protects the third component of the right to travel. Writing for the majority in the Slaughter-House Cases, Justice Miller explained that one of the privileges conferred by this Clause "is that a citizen of the United States can, of his own volition, become a citizen of any State of the Union by a bona fide residence therein, with the same rights as other citizens of that State". (emphasis added) Justice Miller actually wrote in the Slaughter-House Cases that the right to become a citizen of a state (by residing in that state) "is conferred by the very article under consideration" (emphasis added), rather than by the "clause" under consideration. In McDonald v Chicago (2010), Justice Clarence Thomas, while concurring with the majority in incorporating the Second Amendment against the states, declared that he reached this conclusion through the Privileges or Immunities Clause instead of the Due Process Clause. Randy Barnett has referred to Justice Thomas's concurring opinion as a "complete restoration" of the Privileges or Immunities Clause. In Timbs v Indiana (2019), Justice Thomas and Justice Neil Gorsuch, in separate concurring opinions, declared the Excessive Fines Clause of the Eighth Amendment was incorporated against the states through the Privileges or Immunities Clause instead of the Due Process Clause.

The Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits the federal government from imposing excessive bail, excessive fines, or cruel and unusual punishments. This amendment was adopted on December 15, 1791, along with the rest of the United States Bill of Rights. The Amendment serves as a limitation upon the federal government to impose unduly harsh penalties on criminal defendants before and after a conviction. This limitation applies equally to the price for obtaining pretrial release and the punishment for crime after conviction. The phrases in this amendment originated in the English Bill of Rights of 1689. The prohibition against cruel and unusual punishments has led courts to hold that the Constitution totally prohibits certain kinds of punishment, such as drawing and quartering. Under the Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause, the Supreme Court has struck down the application of capital punishment in some instances, but capital punishment is still permitted in some cases where the defendant is convicted of murder. The Supreme Court has held that the Excessive Fines Clause prohibits fines that are "so grossly excessive as to amount to a deprivation of property without due process of law". The Court struck down a fine as excessive for the first time in United States v Bajakajian (1998). Under the Excessive Bail Clause, the Supreme Court has held that the federal government cannot set bail at "a figure higher than is reasonably calculated" to ensure the defendant's appearance at trial. The Supreme Court has ruled that the Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause applies to the states as well as to the federal government, but the Excessive Bail Clause has not been applied to the states. On February 20, 2019, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously in Timbs v Indiana that the Excessive Fines Clause also applies to the states. Text. Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Prohibitions on excessive fines date back at least as far as Magna Carta in 1215, and the U.S. Constitution has barred excessive fines since 1791. But the Supreme Court has only recently begun to interpret what the Excessive Fines Clause means, and it wasn't until 2019 that the Court said the Clause applies to the states. On this episode: the story of how the Supreme Court finally began to incorporate the Bill of Rights rights against the states and the history of excessive fines. Click here for transcript. Click here for Episode 1. Click for iTunes, Spotify, Google Podcasts, TuneIn, and Stitcher.

Prohibitions on excessive fines date back at least as far as Magna Carta in 1215, and the U.S. Constitution has barred excessive fines since 1791. But the Supreme Court has only recently begun to interpret what the Excessive Fines Clause means, and it wasn't until 2019 that the Court said the Clause applies to the states. On this episode: the story of how the Supreme Court finally began to incorporate the Bill of Rights rights against the states and the history of excessive fines. [Click here for Episode 1.] Click for iTunes, Spotify, Google Podcasts, TuneIn, and Stitcher.

Prohibitions on excessive fines date back at least as far as Magna Carta in 1215, and the U.S. Constitution has barred excessive fines since 1791. But the Supreme Court has only recently begun to interpret what the Excessive Fines Clause means, and it wasn't until 2019 that the Court said the Clause applies to the states. On this episode: the story of how the Supreme Court finally began to incorporate the Bill of Rights rights against the states and the history of excessive fines.

Prohibitions on excessive fines date back at least as far as Magna Carta in 1215, and the U.S. Constitution has barred excessive fines since 1791. But the Supreme Court has only recently begun to interpret what the Excessive Fines Clause means, and it wasn't until 2019 that the Court said the Clause applies to the states. On this episode: the story of how the Supreme Court finally began to incorporate the Bill of Rights rights against the states and the history of excessive fines.

Back in 2013, Tyson Timbs’ $40,000 Land Rover was seized by police after he was arrested and charged with selling $400 worth of heroin. After Timbs and his attorney filed suit, his case went from Indiana state court all the way to the Supreme Court of the United States. In a unanimous Supreme Court ruling in Timbs v. Indiana, this ruling now requires cities and states, not just the Federal Government, to abide by the Eighth Amendment’s Excessive Fines Clause, preventing law enforcement from imposing excessive fines in seizure cases, setting up a historical precedent. On Lawyer 2 Lawyer, host Craig Williams is joined by Wesley Hottot, senior attorney for the Institute for Justice and Tony Mauro, Supreme Court correspondent for The National Law Journal and Law.com, as they take a look at the unanimous Supreme Court ruling in Timbs v. Indiana, discuss the case, the path to the Supreme Court, and the impact on future cases. Wesley Hottot is a senior attorney for the Institute for Justice. Tony Mauro is the Supreme Court correspondent for The National Law Journal and Law.com. Special thanks to our sponsors, Clio.

A case in which the Court held that the Eighth Amendment’s Excessive Fines Clause is incorporated against the states under the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause.

In this episode, Wesley Hottot, a Senior Attorney at the Institute for Justice, discusses the pending Supreme Court case Timbs v. Indiana, in which he represented the petitioner, Tyson Timbs. Hottot describes the background of the case and explains the constitutional issue at stake: Whether the Eighth Amendment's Excessive Fines Clause is incorporated against the states. He discusses the process of briefing the case and preparing for the oral argument, and reflects on the experience of arguing before the court. More information about Tyson Timbs and his case against Indiana is available on the Institute for Justice website here. Hottot is on Twitter at @thehottot. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Dallas Police Officer Indicted For Murder, Who's Who Behind Bars, State Seizure and Forfeiture Laws, Excessive Fines Clause

In Timbs v. Indiana, after Tyson Timbs pled guilty to drug charges, the State of Indiana civilly forfeited his vehicle on the theory that he used the vehicle to transport drugs. A state trial court ruled that forfeiture of the $42,000 vehicle for the crime of selling less than $400 worth of drugs was “grossly disproportionate” to his wrongdoing and would violate the Eighth Amendment’s ban on excessive fines. The Indiana Supreme Court reversed, holding that the Eighth Amendment’s Excessive Fines Clause did not even apply to the states. On November 28, 2018, the Supreme Court will hear argument on whether the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against excessive fines applies to states, just as it has applied to the federal government since 1791. Darpana Sheth, Senior Attorney with the Institute for Justice, which represents Tyson Timbs, and Director of IJ’s National Initiative to End Forfeiture Abuse, will discuss the oral arguments in this teleforum. Featuring: Darpana Sheth, Senior Attorney, Institute for Justice Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.

In Timbs v. Indiana, after Tyson Timbs pled guilty to drug charges, the State of Indiana civilly forfeited his vehicle on the theory that he used the vehicle to transport drugs. A state trial court ruled that forfeiture of the $42,000 vehicle for the crime of selling less than $400 worth of drugs was “grossly disproportionate” to his wrongdoing and would violate the Eighth Amendment’s ban on excessive fines. The Indiana Supreme Court reversed, holding that the Eighth Amendment’s Excessive Fines Clause did not even apply to the states. On November 28, 2018, the Supreme Court will hear argument on whether the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against excessive fines applies to states, just as it has applied to the federal government since 1791. Darpana Sheth, Senior Attorney with the Institute for Justice, which represents Tyson Timbs, and Director of IJ’s National Initiative to End Forfeiture Abuse, will discuss the oral arguments in this teleforum. Featuring: Darpana Sheth, Senior Attorney, Institute for Justice Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.