View source for Austin v. United States

{{Use mdy dates|date=September 2023}}
{{Infobox SCOTUS case
| Litigants = Austin v. United States
| ArgueDate = April 20
| ArgueYear = 1993
| DecideDate = June 28
| DecideYear = 1993
| FullName = Austin v. United States
| Docket = 92-6073
| USVol = 509
| USPage = 602
| ParallelCitations = 113 S. Ct. 2801; 125 [[L. Ed. 2d]] 488
| Prior = ''United States v. One Parcel of Prop. Located at 508 Depot St.'', 964 [[F.2d]] [https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/964/814/341676/ 814] ([[8th Cir.]] 1992); [[Certiorari|cert]]. granted, {{ussc|506|1074|1993|el=no}}.
| Holding = Forfeiture under §§881(a)(4) and (a)(7) is a monetary punishment and, as such, is subject to the limitations of the Excessive Fines Clause.
| Majority = Blackmun
| JoinMajority = White, Stevens, O'Connor, Souter
| Concurrence = Scalia (in part and in judgment)
| JoinConcurrence =
| Concurrence2 = Kennedy (in part and in judgment)
| JoinConcurrence2 = Rehnquist, Thomas
| Dissent =
| JoinDissent =
| LawsApplied =
}}
'''''Austin v. United States''''', 509 U.S. 602 (1993), was a case in which the [[Supreme Court of the United States]] held that the [[Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution]] applies to civil forfeiture cases.<ref>{{ussc|name=Austin v. United States|volume=509|page=602|pin=604|year=1993}}.</ref>
==Background==
Richard Lyle Austin was indicted for violating South Dakota's drug laws.<ref name = p604>''Austin'', 509 U.S. at 604.</ref> He pleaded guilty to one count of possession cocaine with intent to distribute and was sentenced to seven years in jail.<ref name = p604/> The United States then filed an ''in rem'' action, seeking forfeiture of Austin's mobile home and auto body shop under federal statutes that provide for forfeiture of property that is used or intended for use to facilitate the transportation of controlled substances, or related materials.<ref>''Austin'', 509 U.S. at 60405 (citing 21 U.S.C. §§ 881(a)(4), (a)(7).</ref> Austin argued that forfeiture of his property would violate the Eighth Amendment's Excessive Fines Clause.<ref>''Austin'', 509 U.S. at 605.</ref>
==Opinion of the Court==
In an opinion written by [[Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court|Justice]] [[Harry Blackmun]], the Court held that civil forfeiture proceedings are "subject to the limitations of the Eight Amendment's Excessive Fines Clause."<ref>''Austin'', 509 U.S. at 622.</ref> Justice [[Antonin Scalia]] filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment, writing that the majority should not have decided whether ''in rem'' forfeitures always amount to a punishment of the owner.<ref>''Austin'', 509 U.S. at 626-27 (Scalia, J., concurring in part and concurring in the judgment).</ref> Justice [[Anthony Kennedy]] also filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment which was joined by [[Chief Justice of the United States|Chief Justice]] [[William Rehnquist]] and Justice [[Clarence Thomas]].<ref>''Austin'', 509 U.S. at 628 (Kennedy, J., concurring in part and concurring in the judgment).</ref>
==See also==
* [[List of United States Supreme Court cases]]
* [[Lists of United States Supreme Court cases by volume]]
* [[List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 508]]
* [[List of United States Supreme Court cases by the Rehnquist Court]]
==References==
{{Reflist|30em}}
==External links==
*{{caselaw source
| case=''Austin v. United States'', {{ussc|509|602|1993|el=no}}
| googlescholar = https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=10005133394633023821
| findlaw=https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/509/602.html
| justia=https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/509/602/case.html
| loc =http://cdn.loc.gov/service/ll/usrep/usrep509/usrep509602/usrep509602.pdf
| oyez =https://www.oyez.org/cases/1992/92-6073
}}
{{US8thAmendment}}
[[Category:United States Supreme Court cases]]
[[Category:United States Supreme Court cases of the Rehnquist Court]]
[[Category:Excessive Fines Clause case law]]
[[Category:1993 in United States case law]]