The Supreme Court of the United States has tackled some truly monumental questions in recent years. Now, the justices have agreed to take on a case that sounds like it was ripped from a bar trivia night gone horribly wrong. As Conservative Brief reported, the court will hear an Alaska pilot's challenge to the state's attempt to seize his entire 1969 Cessna because a passenger allegedly tried to sneak a six-pack of Budweiser into a dry village.
Let that sink in. A six-pack. Of Budweiser. Not even the good stuff.
Pilot Ken Jouppi says he had no idea the beer was on board. He maintains that the suds were tucked inside a passenger's luggage and that he does not make a habit of rifling through people's bags before flights. Which, honestly, seems reasonable. The man flies bush planes in Alaska, not TSA checkpoints.
The incident dates back to April 3, 2012, when Jouppi was preparing to fly a passenger from Fairbanks to Beaver, a remote community about 100 miles north that is classified as a dry village under Alaska law. State troopers showed up as Jouppi was loading the plane and found the beer before the aircraft even left the ground. Nobody got buzzed. Nobody got airborne. The beer was caught sitting on the tarmac like a very sad tailgate party.
Jouppi was sentenced to three days in jail and fined $1,500, which already seems like a steep price for six cans of America's most aggressively average lager. But Alaska also wants his plane, which court filings estimate is worth around $95,000. That works out to roughly $15,833 per can of Budweiser, which is a markup that would make even airport bars blush.
Jouppi's lawyers, from the libertarian Institute for Justice, argue the forfeiture violates the Eighth Amendment's protection against excessive fines. Their petition laid it out plainly: "No matter that the offense is a misdemeanor. As here. No matter that the pilot is a first-time offender. As here. No matter that the alcohol is a six-pack of Budweiser. As here. No matter that it belonged to a customer. As here." They summed it up with the kind of line that writes itself: "The result: an airplane forfeited for a six-pack."
Alaska, for its part, argues it faces "unique difficulties" policing alcohol in remote villages accessible mainly by air. The state compared seizing aircraft to the longstanding practice of seizing ships used in criminal activity. "Many remote communities in Alaska have limited law enforcement resources to respond to, for example, alcohol-fueled domestic violence," the state wrote in its filing, adding that these communities also lack public health infrastructure.
Those are legitimate concerns about real problems in remote Alaska. But you can acknowledge all of that and still wonder whether confiscating a $95,000 airplane from a guy who did not even know about the beer is the proportional response the Founding Fathers had in mind.
The case is set to be heard during the court's next term starting in October, with a decision expected by next summer. Thirteen years after a six-pack of Bud never even made it off the ground, the highest court in the land will finally crack this one open.
Like what you see? Then sign up for our Free Newsletter
