Is Trump's Mega-Fine Unconstitutional? Maybe

Although the Eighth Amendment is not explicitly limited to criminal cases, its three subjects— bail, fines and punishments — all relate generally to criminal cases. Trump's fine was imposed in what was denominated a civil case. But it was not a traditional civil case between private parties, because no private parties were allegedly damaged by Trump. It was a case brought by the State of New York, which would receive the fine. Moreover, the fine was intended to deter the kind of conduct of which Trump was accused.

Advertisement

These factors make the fine seem closer to the usual attributes of a public criminal case than of a private civil case. A functional analysis of the fine in this case could well conclude that it is really criminal in nature and should be covered by the Eighth Amendment.

Ed Morrissey

If you have to choose between Dersh and myself on con-law interpretation, definitely choose Dersh -- but I don't see why the Eighth Amendment would be limited to criminal cases. The language doesn't have that limitation: "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted." The state is imposing this fine, which has no bearing on actual losses or any sort of restitution claims. The judgment seizes $455 million for itself through the use of a civil complaint. That's a fine, and it's grotesquely excessive, and it's intended to drive someone out of business for what the judge admitted were "venial" sins. That's also pretty "unusual," to boot. 

Join the conversation as a VIP Member

Trending on HotAir Videos

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement