October Term 2018 · Docket 17-1091
Does the Eighth Amendment bar states from seizing property as punishment?
Timbs argues the Constitution limits state property seizures. Indiana claims states may seize property without federal limits.
Verified source milestones
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
The arguments, in order
This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.
Argument 1 ·
What happened at the argument
Timbs' counsel argued the freedom from excessive fines applies to states.
Indiana's counsel argued in rem forfeitures have long existed without proportionality limits.
Justice Ginsburg questioned if this logic excludes non-citizens from protections.
Justice Alito asked if a six-year prison sentence would violate the Eighth Amendment.
Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details
Sources used for this argument breakdown
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 45-51 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 45-51
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 21-27 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 21-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 7-11 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 7-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 12, lines 11-15 — Transcript, file page 12, lines 11-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 31, lines 41-1 — Transcript, file page 31, lines 41-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 11-21 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 11-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 23-23 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 23-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 25-29 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 25-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 31-35 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 31-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 15-17 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 15-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 23-29 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 23-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 39-41 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 39-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 13-39 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 13-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 15-35 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 15-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 39-45 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 39-45
A citizen's guide to the whole case
What this case is about
Timbs seeks a federal limit on state property seizures. Indiana defends its right to seize property without federal constraints.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 31, lines 41-1 — Transcript, file page 31, lines 41-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 23-23 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 23-23
How the case got here
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on November 28, 2018.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 11-21 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 11-21
What each side wants
Timbs wants the federal Constitution to limit state property seizures.
Indiana wants to keep its power to seize property without federal limits.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 31, lines 41-1 — Transcript, file page 31, lines 41-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 23-23 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 23-23
What each side says
Timbs argues the Eighth Amendment applies to states through the Fourteenth Amendment.
Indiana argues the Eighth Amendment does not restrict state property seizures.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 31, lines 41-1 — Transcript, file page 31, lines 41-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 23-23 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 23-23
What the justices asked
Justice Alito asked if the liberty interest comes from the Fourth Amendment.
Justice Alito asked which constitutional provision Timbs relies on for his claim.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 45-51 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 45-51
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 21-27 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 21-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 7-11 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 7-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 12, lines 11-15 — Transcript, file page 12, lines 11-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 25-29 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 25-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 31-35 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 31-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 15-17 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 15-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 23-29 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 23-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 39-41 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 39-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 13-39 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 13-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 15-35 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 15-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 39-45 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 39-45
Why it matters
This case defines the scope of federal limits on state power. It determines whether states can seize property without federal checks. The outcome shapes the balance between state authority and individual rights.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 31, lines 41-1 — Transcript, file page 31, lines 41-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 23-23 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 23-23
What happens next
This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 45-51 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 45-51
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 21-27 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 21-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 7-11 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 7-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 12, lines 11-15 — Transcript, file page 12, lines 11-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 11-21 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 11-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 25-29 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 25-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 31-35 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 31-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 15-17 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 15-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 23-29 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 23-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 39-41 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 39-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 13-39 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 13-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 15-35 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 15-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 39-45 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 39-45
Official Court provenance
Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page
Title and summary sources
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 31, lines 41-1 — Transcript, file page 31, lines 41-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 23-23 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 23-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 31, lines 41-1 — Transcript, file page 31, lines 41-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 23-23 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 23-23
Revision history
- Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.
- Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.