The Supreme Court said Monday it will take up the case of an Alaska bush pilot who says state officials are unlawfully trying to confiscate his $95,000 airplane after a passenger carried a six-pack of beer onto a flight headed for a dry village.
Kenneth Jouppi filed suit to stop the state from seizing the aircraft after he was convicted on an alcohol-related misdemeanor charge. The Alaska Supreme Court sided with the state, finding that Jouppi’s plane could be forfeited under criminal forfeiture laws.
But on Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear Jouppi’s case. He contends that taking his 1969 Cessna would run afoul of the Eighth Amendment’s “Excessive Fines Clause.” Arguments are expected in the fall. Under Supreme Court rules, four justices must vote to grant an appeal before the court hears it.
“I’m thrilled that the U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear this case, because this case isn’t just about me or my airplane anymore,” Jouppi said in a statement released by his attorneys at the Institute for Justice. “I’m in my 80s now, and I’ve been fighting this for over a decade because I see it as my duty to ensure that the Bill of Rights actually means something in protecting against government overreach.”
The dispute dates to April 2012, when Jouppi was getting ready to fly a passenger from Fairbanks to Beaver, a remote village where alcohol was prohibited. The passenger had placed beer in her luggage along with groceries. Before the plane took off, State Police troopers searched the aircraft and found a six-pack of Budweiser in a shopping bag.
James Wilson via AP
Jouppi, his company and the passenger were charged with knowingly transporting an alcoholic beverage into a dry community, a misdemeanor. The passenger pleaded guilty, while Jouppi and the company went to trial and were convicted by a jury. A judge sentenced Jouppi to three days in jail.
According to the Fairbanks Daily-News Miner, Judge Patrick Hammers suggested at sentencing that the case should serve as a warning to other pilots. “A message that if you do it (help alcohol smugglers) and get caught, you lose your airplane,” Hammers said. “A message that it’s not worth it.”
The Alaska Supreme Court ruled in 2025 that the state’s attempt to seize Jouppi’s plane did not amount to an excessive fine.
Jouppi’s attorneys say Alaska’s high court examined his conduct “purely in abstract terms” and didn’t evaluate whether it was part of a broader pattern of criminal activity. And they say it wasn’t.
“Few excessive fines cases will present the issue so sharply; a decision upholding the forfeiture of an airplane for a six-pack is a self-recommending candidate for review,” lawyers from the Institute for Justice wrote in their appeal.
In response, lawyers from the Alaska Attorney General’s office argued that the state Supreme Court’s “fact-bound decision” should be allowed to stand.
“Courts across the country apply a multi-factor test to determine whether a fine or forfeiture is grossly disproportional to the gravity of the offense,” they wrote. “Jouppi does not claim that the four-part standard applied by the Alaska Supreme Court is wrong, only that the court misapplied settled law by giving too much weight to some factors and not enough weight to others.”
Jouppi’s attorneys argue that the ruling from the state’s highest court conflicts with case law established in other courts, including U.S. Supreme Court precedent.
“The Excessive Fines Clause was built for cases like this,” they said.
Alaska’s attorneys said Jouppi hasn’t shown how punishing him with forfeiture of his plane is “grossly disproportional to the gravity of his offense.”
“Alcohol abuse is a serious problem in rural Alaska, and airplanes are sometimes the only realistic means to commit the crime of alcohol importation,” they wrote.
