Civil and Human Rights

RELEASE: Victory For The Constitution: Eighth Amendment’s Excessive Fines Protections Apply to States

“Today marks a milestone in the 228-year history of the Bill of Rights.” — CAC Chief Counsel Brianne Gorod

WASHINGTON – On news this morning that the U.S. Supreme Court held that the protections of the Eighth Amendment’s Excessive Fines Clause apply to the states, Constitutional Accountability Center Chief Counsel Brianne Gorod issued the following statement:

Today marks a milestone in the 228-year history of the Bill of Rights. As should have been the case since the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified in 1868, the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on the imposition of excessive fines now applies to state governments no less than it does to the federal government.

Justice Ginsburg’s masterful opinion for the Court echoes key sections of our brief in recounting the history leading to the drafting of the Fourteenth Amendment—including the racist Black Codes that used draconian fines to punish and subjugate African Americans for petty crimes—and explains why the Constitution prohibits the states from meting out the kind of penalty borne by Tyson Timbs.

Significantly, this case has united progressives and conservatives—both advocates and the Justices themselves—in a shared understanding of the original meaning of the Constitution.

#

Resources:

CAC brief in support of petitioners in Timbs v. Indiana: https://www.theusconstitution.org/litigation/timbs-v-indiana/

CAC cert-stage brief in support of petitioners in Timbs v. Indianahttps://www.theusconstitution.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/Timbs-CAC-Brief.pdf

##

Constitutional Accountability Center is a think tank, public interest law firm, and action center dedicated to fulfilling the progressive promise of the Constitution’s text and history. Visit the new CAC website at www.theusconstitution.org.

###

More from Civil and Human Rights

Civil and Human Rights
March 31, 2025

Debate over transgender rights grows more fraught in new Trump era

The Christian Science Monitor
Actions by the Trump administration have been pushing back on transgender inclusion, amid sharp public...
Civil and Human Rights
March 19, 2025

Viewpoint: The North Dakota Constitution’s protections include reproductive autonomy

North Dakota's Grand Forks Herald
The Court should live up to North Dakota’s history as a state with some of...
By: Nargis Aslami
Civil and Human Rights
February 27, 2025

What You Should Know About the Right to Protection in the Trump Era

Washington Monthly
The 14th Amendment was meant to enforce the laws equally, not put vulnerable populations in...
By: David H. Gans
Civil and Human Rights
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington

Shilling v. Trump

In Shilling v. Trump, the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington is considering whether Trump’s Executive Order categorically barring transgender persons from serving in the military is unconstitutional.
Civil and Human Rights
February 19, 2025

History of the North Dakota Constitution Amicus Brief in Access Independent Health Services Inc., d/b/a Red River Women’s Clinic v. Wrigley

Center for Reproductive Rights
Amicus is the Constitutional Accountability Center, a think tank and public interest law firm dedicated...
Civil and Human Rights
U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia

Talbott v. Trump

In Talbott v. Trump, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia is considering whether Trump’s Executive Order categorically barring transgender persons from serving in the military is unconstitutional.