Ingraham v. Wright, 430 U.S. 651, 664 (1977): the clauses of the 8th place “parallel limitations” on criminal law enforcement
Browning-Ferris Industries of Vt., Inc. v. Kelco Disposal, Inc., 492 U.S. 257, 263 (1989): the clauses of the 8th place “parallel limitations” on criminal law enforcement
Harmelin v. Michigan, 501 U.S. 957, 979, n.9 (1991): improper imposition of fines “out of accord with the penal goals of retribution and deterrence” (Scalia).
Austin v. United States, 509 U.S. 602, 609-610 (1993): Excessive fines clause: “civil in rem forfeitures fall within the Clause’s protection when they are at least partially punitive” (federal context).
United States v. Bajakajian, 524 U.S. 321, 327-328 (1998): Excessive fines clause “limits government’s power to extract payments, whether in cash or in kind, ‘as punishment for some offense.’” (quoting Austin v. U.S.) (n.15—takes no position on whether fines should be proportional to a person’s income.)
McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 742, 767 (2010): Eighth Amendment safeguards; historical basis for incorporation of the Bill of Rights—rights that are “fundamental to our scheme of ordered liberty” and “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition.” Incorporated protections apply “identically to both the Federal Government and the States” (at 766, n. 14).
Timbs v. Indiana, 586 U.S. ___ (2019): Excessive Fines Clause is an incorporated protection applicable to the States via the 14th Amendment’s Due Process Clause. (Civil in rem forfeiture of $42K SUV.) (Summary)
Ipse Dixit Paiges 