Alaska's seizure of a bootlegger's plane was legal, Supreme Court says
Alaska Supreme Court Justice Jude Pate, right, asks a question during oral arguments in a case concerning correspondence education allotments, on June 27, 2024, in the Boney Courthouse in Anchorage. (Photo by Andrew Kitchenman/Alaska Beacon)
When the state of Alaska seized a bootlegger's plane, it did not violate the U.S. Constitution's excessive fines clause, the Alaska Supreme Court has ruled.
The ruling, published Friday, involves a 13-year-old dispute that followed the conviction of Kenneth Jouppi for attempting to transport beer from Fairbanks to Beaver, an Interior Alaska town that has outlawed the importation, sale and possession of alcohol.
Jouppi operated an air service and was transporting a passenger who had loaded 72 cans of beer as cargo. Troopers said Jouppi was aware of at least one six-pack and thus knowingly transported alcohol, something Jouppi contested at trial.
The state attempted to seize Jouppi's airplane as a result of the conviction, but the trial court denied that seizure, citing state law. The state appealed, and the Alaska Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the seizure, remanding the case back to the trial court.
The trial court again declined to rule in favor of the seizure, this time citing the U.S. Constitution, and the state appealed to the Supreme Court.
'We hold, as a matter of law, that the owner of the airplane failed to establish that forfeiture would be unconstitutionally excessive,' wrote Justice Jude Pate on behalf of the court, which ruled unanimously.
'Forfeiture of the airplane constituted a fine within the meaning of the Excessive Fines Clause, and … the forfeiture is not grossly disproportional to the gravity of the harm caused by the offense,' he wrote.
The decision was based upon a U.S. Supreme Court case known as United States v. Bajakajian, which set up a two-part test to determine whether a fine is excessive: The fine must be intended as punishment, and it cannot be disproportional to the crime.
Citing legislative debates, the Alaska Supreme Court's new ruling says that lawmakers intended aircraft-related smuggling to be subject to greater penalties than other ways of bootlegging.
In addition, the ruling says that the harm caused by alcohol to rural Alaska means that severe punishment is not disproportionate.
'Alcohol abuse in rural Alaska leads to increased crime; disorders, such as alcoholism; conditions, such as fetal alcohol spectrum disorder; and death, imposing substantial costs on public health and the administration of justice. Within this context, it is clear that the illegal importation of even a six-pack of beer causes grave societal harm,' the ruling states. 'This factor strongly suggests that the forfeiture is not grossly disproportional.'
The Alaska Supreme Court's ruling sends the case back to the Court of Appeals for further work.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Miami Herald
19 hours ago
- Miami Herald
Florida Bar complaint accuses Bondi of ‘misconduct' as U.S. Attorney General
During her Senate confirmation hearing for U.S. Attorney General, Pam Bondi tip-toed around whether she would stand up to President Donald Trump's pressure on the Justice Department, promising only in a broad sense that 'politics has to be taken out of this system.' Since her confirmation in February, Bondi has earned the praise of conservative Republicans for loyally following Trump's agenda while drawing the wrath of critics on the Democratic spectrum who say she has politicized the Justice Department on issues ranging from illegal immigration to public corruption. Now, a liberal- and moderate-leaning coalition of about 70 law professors, attorneys and former Florida Supreme Court justices is attacking Bondi's record in an ethics complaint filed on Thursday with the Florida Bar. They accuse Bondi of violating her ethical duties as U.S. Attorney General, saying she has committed 'serious professional misconduct that threatens the rule of law and the administration of justice.' The complaint claims Bondi 'has sought to compel Department of Justice lawyers to violate their ethical obligations under the guise of 'zealous advocacy' ' that she espoused in a Feb. 5 memo to all agency employees on her first day in office. The complaint further says Bondi threatened agency lawyers with discipline or termination if they failed 'to zealously pursue the President's political objectives,' alleging her conduct violates Florida Bar rules and longstanding norms of the Justice Department. The coalition, which includes retired Florida Supreme Court justices Barbara J. Pariente, Peggy A. Quince and James Perry, noted that the Florida Bar rejected two other recent ethics complaints against Bondi, saying it 'does not investigate or prosecute sitting officers appointed under the U.S. Constitution while they are in office.' But the coalition countered that 'the Florida Bar's dismissal is unsupported by history or precedent,' arguing none of its rules exempt a Florida-licensed lawyer from scrutiny who is accused of abusing her position as a federal public official. Justice Department officials condemned the latest Florida Bar complaint. 'The Florida Bar has twice rejected performative attempts by these out-of-state lawyers to weaponize the bar complaint process against AG Bondi,' Justice Department chief of staff Chad Mizelle said in a statement provided to the Miami Herald on Thursday. 'This third vexatious attempt will fail to do anything other than prove that the signatories have less intelligence —and independent thoughts — than sheep.' Bondi's role in firings The coalition's complaint accuses Bondi — the 59-year-old former Florida Attorney General and State Attorney in the Tampa area — of playing a central role in the improper firings and resignations of numerous government lawyers during her four-month span at the helm of the Justice Department. Three examples are cited in the complaint: ▪ In mid-April, Bondi and Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche fired a seasoned immigration lawyer who the Trump administration accused of sabotaging its legal case over the mistaken deportation of a Maryland man to his native El Salvador. Justice Department lawyer Erez Reuveni argued the government's case in the deportation of Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia, who was sent to a Salvadoran mega prison in March due to an 'administrative error,' despite an immigration court order that he not be removed from the United States. Reuveni was initially placed on administrative leave days after informing a federal judge: 'Our only arguments are jurisdictional. … He should not have been sent to El Salvador.' The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the judge's order directing the Trump administration to 'facilitate' Garcia's release, but he's still imprisoned in El Salvador. READ MORE: Judge orders Trump administration to bring Venezuelans back from El Salvador prison ▪ In mid-February, a longtime federal prosecutor resigned rather than carry out what she described as orders from Trump-appointed officials to pursue enforcement actions unsupported by evidence, according to a copy of her resignation letter. Denise Cheung, who was the head of the criminal division of the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia, wrote in her resignation letter to interim U.S. Attorney Ed Martin that she had 'always sought to offer sound and ethical counsel' and that she had been asked to take investigative and law enforcement actions despite what she called the lack of 'sufficient evidence.' Cheung wrote that she was asked to review documentation provided by the Office of the Deputy Attorney General 'to open a criminal investigation into whether a contract had been unlawfully awarded by an executive agency.' The contract was reportedly granted by the Environmental Protection Agency during President Joe Biden's administration. ▪ Earlier in February, several senior federal prosecutors in New York and Washington resigned after they refused to follow a Justice Department order to drop the corruption charges against New York Mayor Eric Adams. They resigned after Emil Bove, the acting U.S. deputy attorney general, issued a Feb. 10 memo ordering federal prosecutors in New York to dismiss the case against Adams, saying it hampered the mayor's ability to tackle 'illegal immigration and violent crime.' Danielle R. Sassoon, the acting U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York, resigned one day after appealing to Bondi. Sassoon said she attended a meeting on Jan. 31 with Bove, Adams' attorneys and members of her office. 'Adams's attorneys repeatedly urged what amounted to a quid pro quo, indicating that Adams would be in a position to assist with the Department's enforcement priorities only if the indictment were dismissed,' Sassoon wrote on Feb. 12. 'Zealous advocacy' According to the Florida Bar complaint, Bondi's 'principal ethical violation arises from her perversion of the concept of 'zealous advocacy' into an overriding campaign, individually and through Messrs. Blanche, Bove and Martin, to coerce and intimidate the lawyers they supervise into violating their ethical obligations.' In each of the three examples, Bondi and her senior team 'ordered Department lawyers to do things those lawyers were ethically forbidden from doing, under threat of suspension or termination—or fired them for not having done so,' the complaint says. Jon May, a longtime South Florida criminal defense attorney who represented Panamanian strongman Manuel Noriega in his drug-trafficking case in Miami, said he and others who authored the Florida Bar complaint believe 'zealous advocacy operates within the rules of ethics, not outside them.' 'But the Attorney General wrongly demands government lawyers abandon their ethical obligations and advance the Administration's agenda no matter the cost to the rule of law,' May said. 'Since her first day on the job, Pam Bondi has made clear that she plans to use the Department of Justice for political pursuits, and she has done just that,' said Norm Eisen, executive chair of Democracy Defenders Fund, a nonprofit legal advocacy group in Washington, D.C. Eisen is the former ambassador to the Czech Republic during the Obama administration. Trump's executive power While the Florida Bar complaint focuses on three examples of Bondi's alleged ethical misconduct, it does not capture Trump's latest executive order instructing his White House counsel and the attorney general to investigate former President Biden and his staff. In his order issued on Wednesday, Trump instructed them to examine whether some of Biden's presidential actions were legally invalid because his aides had enacted those policies without his knowledge — an 'attempt to stoke outlandish conspiracy theories about his predecessor,' according to The New York Times. Nor does the Florida Bar complaint mention perhaps the most politically charged actions taken by the Justice Department in the week after Trump was sworn in on Jan. 20 for a second term as president. Acting Attorney General James McHenry, Bondi's temporary predecessor, fired more than a dozen career prosecutors in the Justice Department and U.S. Attorney's Office in Miami who had worked on the classified documents case or the election-interference case arising from the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol — both brought against Trump by the former special counsel, Jack Smith, during the Biden presidency. The firings by Trump's Justice Department conjured up then-President Richard Nixon's controversial move to have special prosecutor Archibald Cox fired because he refused to withdraw a subpoena for the Nixon White House tapes during the Watergate investigation. In what became known as the 'Saturday Night Massacre,' Nixon ordered Attorney General Elliot Richardson to fire Cox, but Richardson refused and resigned. Then, the president ordered the AG's deputy, William Ruckelshaus, to fire Cox. He also refused and resigned. Nixon finally prevailed when he ordered the Justice Department's solicitor general, Robert Bork, to terminate Cox — a move that backfired on Nixon and ultimately led to his resignation as president in 1974. In the aftermath, it was generally understood there would be 'no contact' between the president and the attorney general regarding investigations and prosecutions. But after more than 50 years, the Justice Department's wall of independence from the White House was officially torn down in July 2024. In an historic 6-3 opinion, the Supreme Court ruled that former President Trump was generally immune from criminal liability for his official acts — including his attempts to use the Justice Department to obstruct the results of the 2020 election, which he lost to Biden. The court's conservative majority found that 'the President may discuss potential investigations and prosecutions with his Attorney General and other Justice Department officials to carry out his constitutional duty to 'take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed' ' under Article II of the Constitution. Bondi pledges Justice Department won't be weaponized During her Senate confirmation hearing in mid-January, Bondi said she would keep politics out of the Justice Department — despite refusing to say that Trump lost the 2020 election and previously saying 'prosecutors will be prosecuted.' 'The partisanship, the weaponization, will be gone,' Bondi testified, while repeatedly saying the Justice Department had been misused under the Biden administration. 'America will have one tier of justice for all.' In her Feb. 5 'Zealous Advocacy' memo to all Justice Department employees, Bondi advised prosecutors that their responsibilities 'include not only aggressively enforcing criminal and civil laws enacted by Congress but also vigorously defending presidential policies and actions against legal challenges on behalf of the United States.' But then Bondi said: 'The discretion afforded Department attorneys entrusted with those responsibilities does not include latitude to substitute personal political views or judgments for those that prevailed in the election.' She concluded by warning that anyone who 'refuses to advance good-faith arguments on behalf of the Administration ... or impedes the Department's mission will be subject to discipline and potentially termination.'
Yahoo
3 days ago
- Yahoo
US judge says prisons must provide gender-affirming care for inmates
By Dietrich Knauth NEW YORK (Reuters) -A U.S. judge on Tuesday ruled the U.S. Bureau of Prisons must keep providing transgender inmates gender-affirming care, despite an executive order President Donald Trump signed on his first day back in office to halt funding for such care. U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth in Washington, D.C., allowed a group of more than 2,000 transgender inmates in federal prisons to pursue a lawsuit challenging the order as a class action. He ordered the Bureau of Prisons to provide them with hormone therapy and accommodations such as clothing and hair-removal devices while the lawsuit plays out. The ruling does not require the bureau to provide surgical care related to gender transitions. White House spokesperson Harrison Fields said the Trump administration expects to ultimately prevail in the legal dispute. "The District Court's decision allowing transgender women, aka MEN, in women's prisons fundamentally makes women less safe and ignores the biological truth that there are only two genders," Fields said in an email. The American Civil Liberties Union, which represents the inmates, said the ruling was "a critical reminder to the Trump administration that trans people, like all people, have constitutional rights that don't simply disappear because the president has decided to wage an ideological battle." About 2,230 transgender inmates are housed in federal custodial facilities and halfway houses, according to the U.S. Department of Justice. About two-thirds of them, 1,506, are transgender women, most of whom are housed in men's prisons. The named plaintiffs, two transgender men and one transgender woman, sued the Trump administration in March to challenge Trump's January 20 executive order aimed at combating what the administration called "gender ideology extremism." The executive order directed the federal government to only recognize two, biologically distinct sexes, male and female; and house transgender women in men's prisons. It also ordered the bureau to stop spending any money on "any medical procedure, treatment, or drug for the purpose of conforming an inmate's appearance to that of the opposite sex." Lamberth, appointed by Republican President Ronald Reagan, said in Tuesday's ruling that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed in their lawsuit because the bureau did not perform any analysis before cutting off treatment that its own medical staff had previously deemed to be medically appropriate for the inmates. Even if it had extensively studied the issue before deciding to stop gender-affirming care, the decision might still violate the U.S. Constitution's Eighth Amendment's protections against "cruel and unusual" punishment, Lamberth wrote. The Department of Justice had argued that the judge should defer to the policy decision of a democratically elected president, but Lamberth said a functioning democracy requires respect for "all duly enacted laws," including those that blocked the executive branch from acting in an "arbitrary and capricious" manner. Democratic self-governance "does not mean blind submission to the whims of the most recent election-victor," Lamberth wrote. The executive order said it was meant to promote the "dignity, safety, and wellbeing of women, and to stop the spread of "gender ideology" which denies "the immutable biological reality of sex." But the inmates receiving hormone treatments had little interest in promoting any ideology, and were instead taking "measures to lessen the personal anguish caused by their gender dysphoria," Lamberth wrote.
Yahoo
3 days ago
- Yahoo
Sterling family ‘sick,' ‘devastated' after judge tosses murder case against former MSP sgt.
Editor's note: The video above aired May 29, 2025. GRAND RAPIDS, Mich. (WOOD) — Samuel Sterling's parents say they are devastated and in disbelief after a federal judge threw out the murder case against the former Michigan State Police sergeant in the death of their son. More than a year after she lost her son, the back of Andrica Cage's shirt said it all: 'A mother's love never dies.' The front was a picture of Sterling with angel wings on his back. As she honors her son, she says she has lost hope in the justice system. 'I got hope in God,' she said. 'That's what I'm going to stick with.' Judge tosses case against former MSP sgt in death of Samuel Sterling In April 2024, police were pursuing the 25-year-old Sterling for multiple felony warrants and tracked him down to a Kentwood gas station. Officers chased Sterling on foot to a nearby Burger King while Keely pursued in an unmarked cruiser. Video shows Detective Sgt. Brian Keely's SUV hitting Sterling near the restaurant entrance. Sterling died hours later. A federal judge dismissed against Keely last week, ruling that he's entitled to immunity under the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution because he was acting as a federal law enforcement officer. The judge also said prosecutors didn't prove Keely intentionally killed Sterling. 'I was sick,' Cage said. 'I threw up. I cried. It was just unbelievable that a judge can actually dismiss something.' Sterling's dad Michael Sterling believes a jury would have found Keely guilty. As of now, they won't get their day in court. He said it's a slap in the face. 'I'm not surprised, but I'm very hurt, devastated, sad, angry,' he said. 'All the above.' 'Abomination of justice': Community leaders react to Keely case dismissal Kent County Commissioner Robert S. Womack, who has been working with the family, said 'this was a death that could have been avoided.' 'Somewhere there has to be justice for them to know that the state of Michigan recognizes this was a life that was taken,' he said. Keely's attorneys say he is vindicated by the decision. They argue he was doing his job in a high-risk situation and protecting the public from someone they say was a dangerous fugitive. 'This ruling not only vindicates our client but also sends a strong message in support of those who serve with honor and integrity,' Keely attorneys Marc E. Curtis and Lance LoRusso said in a statement. AG says she's mulling appeals in Keely case Attorney General Dana Nessel, who brought the charges against Keely and is considering appealing, said the ruling was unprecedented. 'The way this case was decided was nothing short of a miscarriage of justice,' Nessel told News 8 last week. Attorney Ven Johnson is representing the Sterling family in a civil excessive force lawsuit. He said the judge's decision to throw out the criminal case is 'revictimizing the victims.' 'I've never seen anything like this in my life after nearly 40 years of practice,' he said. Sterling's parents remain at a loss over how the murder case didn't make it to trial. 'Now it's blood on that judge's hand,' Cage said. 'It wasn't just blood on Brian Keely's hand. Now it's blood on her hand. As I always tell everybody I'm a God-fearing mother, so I'm going to let God handle this.' Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
