United States v. Bajakajian

E666884

United States v. Bajakajian is a 1998 U.S. Supreme Court case that held, for the first time, that a criminal forfeiture could violate the Eighth Amendment’s Excessive Fines Clause if it is grossly disproportionate to the gravity of the offense.

Try in SPARQL Jump to: Surface forms Statements Referenced by

All labels observed (1)

Label Occurrences
United States v. Bajakajian canonical 1

Statements (45)

Predicate Object
instanceOf U.S. Supreme Court case
legal case
amountInvolved $357,144
areaOfLaw constitutional law
criminal law
forfeiture law
arguedDate November 4, 1997
citation 524 U.S. 321
constitutionalProvisionInterpreted Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution NERFINISHED
constitutionalSignificance first Supreme Court case to hold a fine unconstitutional under the Excessive Fines Clause
countryOfCourt United States NERFINISHED
court Supreme Court of the United States
decisionDate June 22, 1998
decisionType majority decision
dissentingOpinionBy Antonin Scalia NERFINISHED
David H. Souter NERFINISHED
Stephen G. Breyer NERFINISHED
William H. Rehnquist NERFINISHED
docketNumber 96-1487
factPattern defendant failed to report that he was transporting more than $10,000 out of the United States
fullName United States v. Bajakajian NERFINISHED
holding A criminal forfeiture violates the Excessive Fines Clause if it is grossly disproportionate to the gravity of the offense
The Excessive Fines Clause applies to punitive forfeitures in criminal cases
joinedByInMajority Anthony M. Kennedy NERFINISHED
John Paul Stevens NERFINISHED
Ruth Bader Ginsburg NERFINISHED
Sandra Day O’Connor NERFINISHED
jurisdiction federal
languageOfOpinion English
legalIssue scope of the Excessive Fines Clause
majorityOpinionBy Clarence Thomas NERFINISHED
page 321
party Hosep Bajakajian NERFINISHED
United States NERFINISHED
precedentFor analysis of proportionality under the Excessive Fines Clause
relatedStatute 18 U.S.C. § 982(a)(1)
31 U.S.C. § 5316
31 U.S.C. § 5322
reporter United States Reports
result forfeiture order held unconstitutional in part
subjectMatter criminal forfeiture of currency
subsequentCitationFrequency frequently cited in Eighth Amendment excessive fines jurisprudence
typeOfForfeiture criminal forfeiture
volume 524
yearDecided 1998

Referenced by (1)

Full triples — surface form annotated when it differs from this entity's canonical label.

Timbs v. Indiana relatedCase United States v. Bajakajian