Jouppi v. Alaska
No. 25-246 · October Term 2026 · Criminal Procedure · argument December 1, 2026
Expected vote 5–4 for Jouppi. Chance of a unanimous ruling 41%.
Before oral argument the model knows only the case's structure: the issue area, which way the lower court ruled, and each justice's record on both. That is not enough to separate cases, so every unargued case carries the petitioner's base rate. The transcript features arrive within days of argument and the number becomes a call.
The case
Kenneth J. Jouppi is suing the state of Alaska after his $95,000 airplane was forfeited because a passenger had a six-pack of beer. The Alaska Supreme Court upheld the forfeiture, reasoning that Jouppi knew about the beer. The Supreme Court must now decide whether, under the Eighth Amendment's Excessive Fines Clause, courts should assess the gravity of an offense abstractly or based on the specific defendant's actions.
- Does the Excessive Fines Clause require courts to consider the specific actions of a defendant, or can they assess the gravity of an offense in the abstract?
- The Court will need to clarify the standard for evaluating the gravity of an offense in civil forfeiture cases.
- The decision will resolve a conflict among lower courts regarding the interpretation of the Excessive Fines Clause.
AI brief written by gemini-2.5-flash from the questions presented and the Oyez facts on 2026-10-02. Commentary only; it is not an input to the model.
Question presented, as filed
The "touchstone of the constitutional inquiry under the Excessive Fines Clause" is that the amount of the fine "must bear some relationship to the gravity of the offense that it is designed to punish." United States v. Bajakajian , 524 U.S. 321,334 (1998). Below, the Alaska Supreme Court upheld the forfeiture of petitioner's $95,000 airplane because, the court reasoned, petitioner knew that one of his passenger's grocery bags contained a sixpack of Budweiser. In so holding, the court captured vividly a lower-court conflict over the standard for evaluating the gravity of a property owner's offense under the Excessive Fines Clause. Aligning with the Eleventh Circuit, the Alaska Supreme Court examined the gravity of the defendant's offense at a stratospheric level of abstraction. Meanwhile, the federal circuit in which Alaska sits-in line with many other state and federal courts-holds that "[i]t is critical" to "review the specific actions of the violator rather than by taking an abstract view of the violation." The question presented is whether, in determining whether a fine contravenes the Excessive Fines Clause, courts may consider the gravity of the underlying offense purely in the abstract or should consider the gravity of the specific defendant's wrongdoing.
The nine
Each justice's predicted vote and the record behind it: how often they have voted for the petitioner overall, in Criminal Procedure cases, and when the lower court ruled conservative; and, once argued, how many questions they put to each side (the side a justice questions more tends to lose their vote). The note under each row is the AI brief's reading, commentary rather than model input.
| Justice | Predicted | Overall | This issue | Lower court conservative | At argument |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
John G. Roberts Republican appointee · since OT2005 Chief Justice Roberts often emphasizes judicial restraint and a careful reading of precedent, which could lead him to scrutinize the application of the Excessive Fines Clause in this context. | 57% Jouppi | 68% for the petitioner · 1,512 votes | 65% Criminal Procedure · 401 votes | 61% lower court conservative · 734 votes | not yet argued |
Clarence Thomas Republican appointee · since OT1991 Justice Thomas has historically been a strong proponent of originalism and has shown skepticism towards expansive government power, particularly in the context of property rights and civil forfeiture. | 51% Jouppi | 59% for the petitioner · 2,801 votes | 55% Criminal Procedure · 724 votes | 43% lower court conservative · 1,365 votes | not yet argued |
Samuel A. Alito Republican appointee · since OT2005 Justice Alito tends to favor a more literal interpretation of constitutional text and has often sided with law enforcement, but he has also expressed concerns about government overreach in certain forfeiture cases. | 51% Jouppi | 62% for the petitioner · 1,469 votes | 51% Criminal Procedure · 388 votes | 48% lower court conservative · 722 votes | not yet argued |
Sonia Sotomayor Democratic appointee · since OT2009 Justice Sotomayor has consistently expressed concerns about the impact of civil forfeiture on individuals and has often advocated for a robust interpretation of constitutional protections against excessive fines. | 66% Jouppi | 61% for the petitioner · 1,192 votes | 72% Criminal Procedure · 306 votes | 76% lower court conservative · 594 votes | not yet argued |
Elena Kagan Democratic appointee · since OT2010 Justice Kagan often seeks to balance constitutional principles with practical considerations and has joined opinions that emphasize proportionality in the application of fines and forfeitures. | 66% Jouppi | 63% for the petitioner · 1,072 votes | 72% Criminal Procedure · 267 votes | 75% lower court conservative · 543 votes | not yet argued |
Neil M. Gorsuch Republican appointee · since OT2016 Justice Gorsuch is a textualist and originalist who has been a vocal critic of civil forfeiture practices, often aligning with Justice Thomas in protecting individual property rights against government seizure. | 57% Jouppi | 65% for the petitioner · 592 votes | 63% Criminal Procedure · 126 votes | 59% lower court conservative · 286 votes | not yet argued |
Brett M. Kavanaugh Republican appointee · since OT2018 Justice Kavanaugh generally favors a pragmatic approach to constitutional interpretation and has shown a willingness to consider the practical implications of legal standards, which could lead him to favor a more specific inquiry into a defendant's actions. | 63% Jouppi | 69% for the petitioner · 498 votes | 66% Criminal Procedure · 105 votes | 62% lower court conservative · 244 votes | not yet argued |
Amy Coney Barrett Republican appointee · since OT2020 Justice Barrett often emphasizes original meaning and textualism, and her jurisprudence suggests a careful consideration of the scope of constitutional protections, including those related to property rights. | 57% Jouppi | 66% for the petitioner · 360 votes | 60% Criminal Procedure · 80 votes | 60% lower court conservative · 178 votes | not yet argued |
Ketanji Brown Jackson Democratic appointee · since OT2022 Justice Jackson has often demonstrated a concern for fairness and due process, and her approach to constitutional interpretation suggests she would likely scrutinize the proportionality of the fine in relation to the specific conduct. | 68% Jouppi | 59% for the petitioner · 244 votes | 67% Criminal Procedure · 54 votes | 80% lower court conservative · 127 votes | not yet argued |
Rates are each justice's own participation record in the Supreme Court Database, the same history the model trains on; a rate on fewer than five votes is not shown. The predicted vote is VotePredictor SCOTUS' per-justice probability from the served model, which also reads the bench-wide transcript signal and how long each side held the podium.
Every call this term, justice by justice · how the model is built and its record. Data as of 2026-10-02.