In 2012, Alaska State Troopers arrested Fairbanks pilot Ken Jouppi and seized his aircraft after charging him with bootlegging for shipping beer into the dry community of Beaver.
Now, after 13 years of legal disputes, the state’s decision to seize Jouppi’s airplane could be headed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
The Institute for Justice, a libertarian-leaning nonprofit public interest law firm, last week asked the Supreme Court to consider overturning an Alaska Supreme Court ruling from April. That ruling declared that the state’s decision to seize Jouppi’s plane was not an excessive fine for bootlegging.
The “petition for a writ of certiorari” — a formal document asking the U.S. Supreme Court to take up the issue — was filed last week, an official with the Institute confirmed on Tuesday afternoon.
The odds are against Jouppi — the Supreme Court takes only about 1% of the cases it receives. If cases filed with a fee waiver are excluded — those usually come from prisoners representing themselves in a last-ditch appeal — the acceptance rate is 5% or less.
Now 85 and retired, Jouppi was a longtime air taxi pilot in Fairbanks when he planned to ferry a passenger and her groceries from that hub city to Beaver, a village in the Interior.
Before takeoff, an Alaska State Trooper noticed a six-pack of beer visible in the baggage. Beaver had outlawed the sale, consumption and importation of alcohol in 2004. Troopers searched the plane and found three cases of beer — two Budweiser, one Bud Light — intended for the passenger’s husband, the local postmaster.
Jouppi was indicted on bootlegging charges, convicted, and sentenced. His sentence included three days in jail and a fine. State prosecutors asked that he be required to forfeit his plane, but the trial judge declined.
The state appealed that decision, and the Alaska Court of Appeals ruled in 2017 in the state’s favor. The Appeals judges sent the case back to the trial court, which again refused to order the plane’s forfeiture, citing the U.S. Constitution’s excessive fines clause.
The state again appealed, and in 2022, a full decade after the original crime, the Court of Appeals partially ruled in the state’s favor.
The appeals court ordered additional proceedings by the trial court, but both Jouppi’s attorneys and state prosecutors instead asked the Alaska Supreme Court to take up the issue, which it did last year before issuing a written opinion in April.
“We hold, as a matter of law, that the owner of the airplane failed to establish that forfeiture would be unconstitutionally excessive,” wrote Justice Jude Pate on behalf of the court, which ruled unanimously in the state’s favor.
Pate and the court said that Alaska legislative debates showed that state lawmakers placed a high priority on punishments for bootleggers, and thus the seizure of an airplane was not excessive, even though a relatively small amount of beer was involved.
“Alcohol abuse in rural Alaska leads to increased crime; disorders, such as alcoholism; conditions, such as fetal alcohol spectrum disorder; and death, imposing substantial costs on public health and the administration of justice. Within this context, it is clear that the illegal importation of even a six-pack of beer causes grave societal harm,” the ruling states. “This factor strongly suggests that the forfeiture is not grossly disproportional.”
In their request for the U.S. Supreme Court to examine the case, Jouppi’s attorneys argue that the federal justices should decide whether courts should consider the seriousness of an offense in abstract, or if they should take into account a specific defendant’s circumstances.
The Alaska Supreme Court “examined the gravity of the defendant’s offense at a stratospheric level of abstraction,” they argue, when justices should have taken into account the circumstances.
The Alaska justices relied on a federal decision from the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, Jouppi’s attorneys note, but Alaska is within the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
Judges for the 9th Circuit have considered the Excessive Fines clause of the Constitution and concluded that it is critical to “review the specific actions of the violator rather than by taking an abstract view of the violation.”
Because of those two differing interpretations of the Constitution, Jouppi’s attorneys say, the case is ripe for the U.S. Supreme Court to consider.
No date has been set for a court conference to determine whether Jouppi’s case will be considered by the U.S. Supreme Court.
If the court declines to consider his case, the Alaska Supreme Court decision will stand.