Editing Institute for Justice (section)

=== Property rights ===

==== Eminent domain ====
[[File:Fort Trumbull two.jpg|right|thumb|200px|One of the few remaining houses in the Fort Trumbull neighborhood, September 1, 2006. Underneath the white paint can just barely be read the words "{{smallcaps|Thank you [[M. Jodi Rell|Gov. Rell]] for your support}}" and the web URLs of two organizations protesting over-use of eminent domain, the [[Castle Coalition]] and the Institute for Justice.]]
[[Eminent domain]] cases pursued by the organization involve instances where a government seeks to condemn a property and transfer it from one private owner to another (as opposed to using it for a road, building, park, or other publicly owned property). The organization gained national attention in 1996, defending a small business owner in a case involving [[Trump Plaza Hotel and Casino|Trump Casino]] (''Casino Reinvestment Development Authority v. Coking''), and again in 2005, arguing ''[[Kelo v. City of New London]]'' before the [[Supreme Court of the United States|Supreme Court]].<ref name=NYT-Kelo /><ref name=NYT3-98 /> In the casino case, a New Jersey state agency (the [[Casino Reinvestment Development Authority]]) was attempting to condemn [[Vera Coking]]'s boarding house, along with two other businesses in [[Atlantic City, New Jersey|Atlantic City]], in order to transfer the properties to a business owned by [[Donald Trump]].<ref name=NYT3-98 >{{cite news|last=Mansnerus|first=Laura|title=What Public? Whose Use?|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1998/03/22/nyregion/what-public-whose-use.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm|access-date=December 12, 2013|newspaper=The New York Times|date=March 22, 1998}}</ref> In 1998, a New Jersey Superior Court judge ruled that the state was not allowed to seize the properties.<ref name=NYT-Trump /> However, the ruling did not contest the state's right to take property from one private owner for the purpose of giving it to another. The judge based the ruling on the fact that the state did not get a guarantee that the Trump organization would use the property for a new parking area (as promised), instead of using the property for other purposes such as expanding Trump's casino.<ref name=NYT-Trump>{{cite news|last=Herszenhorn|first=David M.|title=Widowed Homeowner Foils Trump in Atlantic City|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1998/07/21/nyregion/widowed-homeowner-foils-trump-in-atlantic-city.html|access-date=December 12, 2013|newspaper=The New York Times|date=July 21, 1998}}</ref> According to the Institute for Justice, the organization received a "deluge" of requests to participate in other cases of eminent domain abuse after its win in the Coking case. In 2008, organization president Chip Mellor stated:

<blockquote>Frankly, we had not realized just how widespread this phenomenon was until [the Coking case] ... Once we became aware of it, though, we formed a strategic plan to escalate it to national attention and ultimately to the Supreme Court, which we did in the course of the next seven years.<ref name=Rea3-08 /> </blockquote>

In 2005, the organization represented the plaintiffs in the Supreme Court case ''Kelo v. City of New London''. In this case, the state of Connecticut was attempting to take properties owned by state residents and give them to a private company for use in a development. In a 5-to-4 decision the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the state, affirming the right of states to transfer properties from one private owner to another in this way.<ref name="NYT-Kelo">{{cite news |last=Greenhouse |first=Linda |date=June 24, 2005 |title=Justices Uphold Taking Property for Development |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/24/politics/24scotus.html?_r=0 |access-date=December 12, 2013 |newspaper=[[The New York Times]]}}</ref> The ruling prompted what was widely called a "backlash" against this kind of eminent domain activity.<ref name=Lopez_Pass>{{cite journal|last=Lopez|first=Edward|author2=R. Todd Jewell |author3=Noel D. Campbell |title=Pass a Law, Any Law, Fast! State Legislative Responses to the Kelo Backlash|journal=Review of Law & Economics|date=April 2009|volume=5|issue=1|pages=101–135|doi=10.2202/1555-5879.1268|s2cid=201061132|url=http://www.degruyter.com/view/j/rle.2009.5.1/rle.2009.5.1.1268/rle.2009.5.1.1268.xml|access-date=December 12, 2013|url-access=subscription}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal|last=Sandefur|first=Timothy|title=The 'Backlash' So Far: Will Americans Get Meaningful Eminent Domain Reform?|journal=[[Michigan State Law Review]]|date=Fall 2006|ssrn=868539}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|last=Ung|first=Elisa|title=Eminent domain's virulent backlash|url=http://articles.philly.com/2006-06-23/news/25403444_1_domain-for-economic-development-eminent-domain-dana-berliner|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131218084056/http://articles.philly.com/2006-06-23/news/25403444_1_domain-for-economic-development-eminent-domain-dana-berliner|url-status=dead|archive-date=December 18, 2013|access-date=December 12, 2013|newspaper=The Philadelphia Inquirer|date=June 23, 2006}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|last=Reid|first=T. R.|title=Missouri Condemnation No Longer So Imminent; Supreme Court Ruling Ignites Political Backlash|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/05/AR2005090501087.html|access-date=December 12, 2013|newspaper=The Washington Post|date=September 6, 2005}}</ref> In 2006 (on the first anniversary of the Kelo ruling), President [[George W. Bush]] issued an executive order limiting how federal agencies could use eminent domain.<ref>{{cite news|last=Associated Press|title=Bush Limits Eminent-Domain Seizures|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/23/AR2006062301722.html|access-date=December 12, 2013|newspaper=The Washington Post|date=June 24, 2006}}</ref> Between the Kelo ruling and June 2008, 37 states passed laws to increase restrictions on the use of eminent domain.<ref name=Lopez_Pass /> In 2006, the organization won an eminent domain case in the Ohio Supreme Court, the first eminent domain decision by a state supreme court after Kelo.<ref name=OhioEminent >{{cite news|last=Huffstutter|first=P.J.|title=Ohio Landowners Win Eminent Domain Case|url=https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2006-jul-27-na-eminent27-story.html|access-date=December 20, 2013|newspaper=Los Angeles Times|date=July 27, 2006}}</ref> In the years since, the institute has continued its efforts to reform eminent domain laws.<ref name=WSJ1-7 /><ref name=Rea3-08 />

Since litigating the Kelo case, the Institute for Justice has won eminent domain cases in [[Lakewood, Ohio]],<ref>{{Cite web |date=2004-06-30 |title=Eminent Domain - CBS News |url=https://www.cbsnews.com/news/eminent-domain-30-06-2004/ |access-date=2023-12-14 |website=www.cbsnews.com |language=en-US}}</ref> [[Long Branch, New Jersey]],<ref>{{Cite web |last=Star-Ledger |first=Michael Rispoli/The |date=2009-09-16 |title=Long Branch, homeowners settle 5-year eminent domain dispute |url=https://www.nj.com/news/2009/09/long_branch_agrees_to_end_push.html |access-date=2023-12-14 |website=nj |language=en}}</ref> [[Riviera Beach, Florida]],<ref>{{Cite web |author=BRIAN SKOLOFF|agency=Associated Press |title=Eminent domain project on hold after council vote |url=https://www.ocala.com/story/news/2006/11/18/eminent-domain-project-on-hold-after-council-vote/31175314007/ |access-date=2023-12-14 |website=The Star Banner |language=en-US}}</ref> [[National City, California]],<ref>{{Cite web |date=2014-12-05 |title=National City loses battle over boxing gym |url=https://fox5sandiego.com/news/superior-court-says-national-city-has-to-pay-up/ |access-date=2023-12-14 |website=FOX 5 San Diego |language=en-US}}</ref> [[Nashville, Tennessee]],<ref>{{Cite web |last=Root |first=Damon |date=2008-10-02 |title="The lesson here is that government does not need eminent domain to promote redevelopment." |url=https://reason.com/2008/10/02/the-lesson-here-is-that-govern/ |access-date=2023-12-14 |website=Reason.com |language=en-US}}</ref> and [[Atlantic City, New Jersey]].<ref>{{Cite web |date=2019-02-15 |title=Owner beats N.J. government agency seeking to seize family home - for now |url=https://www.phillyvoice.com/atlantic-city-piano-tuner-gets-win-over-government-agency-seeking-seize-family-home/ |access-date=2023-12-14 |website=PhillyVoice |language=english}}</ref>

==== Civil forfeiture ====
The organization seeks to end the use of [[Civil forfeiture in the United States|civil forfeiture]] and replace it with criminal forfeiture,<ref>{{Cite web |last=Rasmussen |first=Eric |date=2020-12-30 |title=New national report gives Minnesota a 'D' for civil forfeiture |url=https://kstp.com/kstp-news/top-news/new-national-report-gives-minnesota-a-d-for-civil-forfeiture/ |access-date=2023-12-14 |website=KSTP.com 5 Eyewitness News |language=en-US}}</ref> which would require the government to convict someone of a crime before their property could be taken.<ref name="AP2-93">{{cite news|last=Carelli|first=Richard|title=Drug Agents Barred From Seizing Property From Innocent Owners|url=https://apnews.com/3b63401f3695f3e4e66ed2d121e7aca7|access-date=December 13, 2013|newspaper=Associated Press|date=February 24, 1993}}</ref> Civil forfeiture is the process by which law enforcement agencies in the United States can seize private property, based on the suspicion that the property was used in, or the fruit of, a crime, but without a criminal conviction or, in some cases, even criminal charges being filed. Typically, the law enforcement agencies can keep seized money and apply it to their budgets, though there may be requirements to utilize some or all of the money for specific purposes (e.g., drug and alcohol rehabilitation). State agencies can also confiscate property under federal statutes, and through a program called "equitable sharing" keep up to 80% of the property.<ref name="WSJnet">{{cite news|last=Emshwiller|first=John R.|title=Federal Asset Seizures Rise, Netting Innocent With Guilty|url=https://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424053111903480904576512253265073870|access-date=December 13, 2013|newspaper=The Wall Street Journal|date=August 22, 2011}}{{subscription required}}</ref> The Institute for Justice and other critics argue that this direct financial reward gives law enforcement agencies a strong incentive to abuse civil asset forfeiture.<ref>{{cite news|last=Fields|first=Gary|title=Court Rejects Justice Department Seizure of Motel|url=https://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424127887323539804578264242356172154|access-date=December 13, 2013|newspaper=The Wall Street Journal|date=January 25, 2013}}{{subscription required}}</ref> In these cases, the organization occasionally works with other advocacy groups such as the [[American Civil Liberties Union]] (ACLU), [[The Heritage Foundation]], and the [[American Bankers Association]].<ref name="AP2-93" /><ref name="WSJnet" /><ref>{{cite news|last=Hoppin|first=Jason|title=Minnesota House approves civil forfeiture changes|url=http://www.twincities.com/dakota/ci_15082740|access-date=December 13, 2013|newspaper=St. Paul Pioneer Press|date=May 15, 2010}}</ref>

The Institute for Justice has litigated numerous civil forfeiture cases across the country. Among them:

In 2011, the Institute for Justice represented Russ Caswell,<ref>{{Cite web |last=Pye |first=Jason  |date=2017-02-22 |title=Congress must reform civil asset forfeiture laws |url=https://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/lawmaker-news/320440-congress-must-reform-civil-asset-forfeiture-laws/ |access-date=2023-12-14 |website=The Hill |language=en-US}}</ref> a motel owner from [[Tewksbury, Massachusetts]], after the federal government sought to take his property through civil forfeiture. After a four-day trial in 2013, the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts dismissed the government’s forfeiture action.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Magistrate Judge Judith G for United States v. 434 Main Street, Tewksbury, Massachusetts |url=https://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/massachusetts/madce/1:2009cv11635/124642/126 |access-date=2023-12-14 |website=Justia Dockets & Filings |language=en}}</ref>

In 2013, the Institute filed suit on behalf of Terry Dehko<ref>{{Cite web |last=Salzman |first=Larry |title=Assault by civil forfeiture: Column |url=https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2013/09/25/grocery-store-detroit-irs-column/2868797/ |access-date=2023-12-14 |website=USA TODAY |language=en-US}}</ref> a grocery store owner in Fraser, Michigan. Federal agents seized Dehko’s bank account without charging him with a crime<ref>{{Cite web |last=Will |first=George |title=Government uses civil forfeiture to prey on innocents |url=https://www.tennessean.com/story/opinion/columnists/2014/05/03/government-uses-civil-forfeiture-prey-innocents/8652911/ |access-date=2023-12-14 |website=The Tennessean |language=en-US}}</ref> but claiming he had made frequent deposits of less than $10,000 into his bank account in an effort to avoid bank regulations. Later that year, the IRS returned Dehko’s money.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Erb |first=Kelly Phillips |title=IRS Backs Down, Returns Seized Cash To Family Businesses |url=https://www.forbes.com/sites/kellyphillipserb/2013/11/15/irs-backs-down-returns-seized-cash-to-family-businesses/ |access-date=2023-12-14 |website=Forbes |language=en}}</ref>

In 2014, the Institute filed three federal suits on behalf of those who had their money or property seized by the government through civil forfeiture:

IJ filed a class action lawsuit<ref>{{Cite news |last=Weigel |first=David |date=2014-09-12 |title=Come and Take It |language=en-US |work=Slate |url=https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2014/09/institute-for-justice-lawsuit-against-philadelphia-libertarians-fight-civil-forfeiture-seizure-rules.html |access-date=2023-12-14 |issn=1091-2339}}</ref> against the City of Philadelphia challenging the city’s use of civil forfeiture, which often targeted minorities and the poor.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Justice |first=Daryl James, Institute for |date=2021-11-05 |title=Victims of Philly police cash grabs tell their side of the story in new civil forfeiture survey {{!}} Opinion |url=http://billypenn.com/2021/11/05/civil-asset-forfeiture-philadelphia-police-institute-justice-victim-survey/ |access-date=2023-12-14 |website=Billy Penn at WHYY |language=en-US}}</ref> In 2018, the city agreed to return $3 million is seized assets to those whose cash and property was taken.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Philadelphia reaches settlement, agrees to change civil forfeiture program |url=https://whyy.org/articles/philadelphia-reaches-settlement-agrees-to-change-civil-forfeiture-program/ |access-date=2023-12-14 |website=WHYY |language=en-US}}</ref>

The Institute filed suit on behalf of Iowa restaurant owner Carole Hinders,<ref>{{Cite web |last=Finney |first=Daniel P. |title=Forfeiture target calls it 'a violation of civil rights' |url=https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/crime-and-courts/2014/11/02/civil-forfeiture-iowa-carole-hinders-arnolds-park/18362299/ |access-date=2023-12-14 |website=The Des Moines Register |language=en-US}}</ref> who had her bank account of $33,000 seized by the IRS, despite never being accused of a crime. Later that year, the IRS agreed to return all of her money.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Dewan |first=Shaila |date=2014-12-13 |title=I.R.S. Asset Seizure Case Is Dropped by Prosecutors |language=en-US |work=The New York Times |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/14/us/irs-asset-forfeiture-case-is-dropped-.html |access-date=2023-12-14 |issn=0362-4331}}</ref>

The Institute filed suit on behalf of Jeffrey, Richard and Mitch Hirsch from Long Island, New York, after the IRS seized $446,000 from their candy and snack wholesale company<ref>{{Cite web |date=2017-04-06 |title=The IRS has been quietly confiscating millions from small business owners |url=https://www.wtvr.com/2017/04/06/the-irs-has-been-quietly-confiscating-millions-from-small-business-owners |access-date=2023-12-14 |website=CBS 6 News Richmond WTVR |language=en}}</ref> without filing any criminal complaint against them. The Hirsch brothers had made deposits of under $10,000 into their bank account, which the government called “structuring.” In 2015, the IRS agreed to return all of the Hirsch’s money.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Feds drop controversial forfeiture case led by Obama AG pick Lynch {{!}} Fox News |url=https://www.foxnews.com/politics/feds-drop-controversial-forfeiture-case-led-by-obama-ag-pick-lynch.amp |access-date=2023-12-14 |website=www.foxnews.com}}</ref>

In 2019, [[Donald Trump|President Donald Trump]] signed a law that now forbids the IRS from seizing bank accounts based on nothing but the allegation of structuring.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Sullum |first=Jacob |date=2019-07-02 |title=New Law Stops IRS From Stealing People's Money Simply Because It Deems Their Bank Deposits Suspiciously Small |url=https://reason.com/2019/07/02/new-law-stops-irs-from-stealing-peoples-money-when-it-deems-their-bank-deposits-suspiciously-small/ |access-date=2023-12-14 |website=Reason.com |language=en-US}}</ref>

In 2021, the Institute won a legal battle against the [[Drug Enforcement Administration]] after it seized $30,000—the life savings—of shoeshine man Kermit Warren as he was traveling through the airport in [[Columbus, Ohio]].<ref>{{Cite web |date=2021-10-29 |title=New Orleans shoeshine man wins legal battle over $30,000 seized by DEA agents |url=https://www.nbcnews.com/news/investigations/new-orleans-shoeshine-man-wins-legal-battle-over-30-000-n1282629 |access-date=2023-12-14 |website=NBC News |language=en}}</ref>

In 2023, the Institute for Justice secured the return of $39,500 to North Carolina shipping company owner Jerry Johnson. Although he earned the money legally and it is not illegal to travel with cash, Phoenix police seized Johnson’s money when he flew into [[Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport]].<ref>{{Cite web |last=Vandell |first=Perry |title=Man had $39,500 seized by Arizona police for nearly 3 years. He finally received his money back. |url=https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2023/03/23/jerry-johnson-arizona-police-civil-asset-forfeiture/11532462002/ |access-date=2023-12-14 |website=USA TODAY |language=en-US}}</ref>

Additional Institute for Justice lawsuits successfully challenging civil forfeiture have been filed in North Carolina, Kentucky, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Connecticut, Wyoming and elsewhere.{{Citation needed|date=December 2023}}

==== Property searches ====
The Institute for Justice has litigated numerous cases challenging what it sees as the unconstitutional searching of private property. Among its areas of litigation are:

===== Warrantless searches of rental properties =====
The Institute has successfully challenged unconstitutional rental inspection requirements in [[Marietta, Georgia]]<ref>{{Cite press release |title=Renters' Rights|first= John |last=Kramer|date=March 21, 2006 |url=https://ij.org/press-release/georgia-rental-inspections-release-3-21-2006/|website=Institute for Justice}}</ref> and [[Park Forest, Illinois]].<ref>{{Cite web |date=1999-04-14 |title=REPEALED RENTAL LAW COSTING PARK FOREST |url=https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-xpm-1999-04-14-9904140121-story.html |access-date=2023-12-14 |website=Chicago Tribune}}</ref>

===== Government searches of “open fields” =====
Today, the government may inspect and place cameras on private property without a warrant or the property owner’s consent as long as this does not include the area immediately surrounding the property owner’s home. This is known as the open fields doctrine. The Institute for Justice is challenging such searches in Pennsylvania<ref>{{Cite web |last=Hayes |first=John|date=2022-07-18 |title=Game Commission hands over evidence in constitutional case on privacy rights |url=https://www.bradfordera.com/news/game-commission-hands-over-evidence-in-constitutional-case-on-privacy-rights/article_07279fe3-66e0-5451-b723-909dc5efe880.html |access-date=2023-12-14 |website=The Bradford Era |language=en}}</ref> and Tennessee.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Wadhwani |first=Anita |date=April 22, 2022|title=State appeals ruling that warrantless searches by wildlife officers are unconstitutional |url=https://tennesseelookout.com/2022/04/22/state-appeals-ruling-that-warrantless-searches-by-wildlife-officers-are-unconstitutional/ |access-date=2023-12-14 |website=Tennessee Lookout |language=en-US}}</ref>

Moreover, several state courts have rejected the open fields doctrine under their own state constitutional search-and-seizure provisions. [Proposed cite: ''See, e.g.'', ''Faulkner v. State'', 98 So. 691 (Miss. 1924); ''State v. Bullock'', 901 P.2d 61 (Mont. 1995); ''People v. Scott'', 593 N.E.2d 1328 (N.Y. 1992); ''State v. Dixson'', 766 P.2d 1015 (Or. 1988); ''Welch v. State'', 289 S.W. 510 (Tenn. 1926); ''State v. Kirchoff'', 587 A.2d 988 (Vt. 1991); ''State v. Johnson'', 879 P.2d 984 (Wash. Ct. App. 1994).]

===== Fines and fees =====
Local governments impose fines and fees for minor traffic violations and property code violations to fund their budgets without raising taxes.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Sisson |first=Patrick |date=2018-05-24 |title=How the municipal court money machine burdens city residents |url=https://archive.curbed.com/2018/5/24/17382120/tickets-fees-fines-criminal-justice-ferguson |access-date=2023-12-14 |website=Curbed |language=en}}</ref> Such actions, however, create financial incentives for municipalities to maximize revenue rather than address public safety issues.

The Institute for Justice continues to litigate cases challenging excessive and arbitrary government-imposed fines and fees in:

Pagedale, Missouri, where the city could fine residents for having mismatched curtains, walking on the left-hand side of a crosswalk and having barbeques in the front of a home, among other infractions.<ref>{{Cite news |author=The Editorial Board |date=2015-11-14 |title=Opinion {{!}} Policing for Profit in St. Louis County |language=en-US |work=The New York Times |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/15/opinion/sunday/policing-for-profit-in-st-louis-county.html |access-date=2023-12-14 |issn=0362-4331}}</ref> The U.S. Department of Justice cited the excessive use of fines and fees as among the issues that sparked the riots in nearby [[Ferguson, Missouri]].<ref>{{Cite news |last=Davey |first=Monica |date=2015-11-04 |title=Lawsuit Accuses Missouri City of Fining Homeowners to Raise Revenue |language=en-US |work=The New York Times |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/05/us/lawsuit-accuses-missouri-city-of-fining-homeowners-to-raise-revenue.html |access-date=2023-12-14 |issn=0362-4331}}</ref> In 2018, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri<ref name=":1">{{Cite web |title=Whitner v. City of Pagedale 4:15-cv-01655 (E.D. Mo.) {{!}} Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse |url=https://clearinghouse.net/case/15137/ |access-date=2023-12-14 |website=clearinghouse.net}}</ref> finalized a consent decree<ref>{{Cite web |last=Shackford |first=Scott |date=2018-05-21 |title=St. Louis Town Agrees to Stop Bankrolling Itself by Fining Its Residents into the Poorhouse |url=https://reason.com/2018/05/21/st-louis-town-agrees-to-stop-bankrolling/ |access-date=2023-12-14 |website=Reason.com |language=en-US}}</ref> in which Pagedale agreed to eliminate its municipal code dealing with fines and fees for what it deemed “nuisance” behaviors.<ref name=":1" />

[[Charlestown, Indiana]],<ref name=":2">{{Cite news |last=Plesset |first=Emilie |date=2017-09-08 |title=Mayor Fined Renters Out of Homes So Builder Could Replace Them With the Rich, Lawsuit Says |language=en |work=The Daily Beast |url=https://www.thedailybeast.com/mayor-fined-renters-out-of-homes-so-builder-could-replace-them-with-the-rich-lawsuit-says |access-date=2023-12-14}}</ref> where the mayor had imposed fines against low-income homeowners in an effort to help a developer secure the land for a new development project.<ref name=":2" />

[[Brookside, Alabama]], where the municipality of 1,253 residents saw fines and fees rise by 640 percent in four years to pay for half of the city government’s income.<ref>{{Cite web |agency=Associated Press |date=2022-08-01 |title=DOJ: Lawsuit should proceed over Brookside's police fines |url=https://aldailynews.com/doj-lawsuit-should-proceed-over-brooksides-police-fines/ |access-date=2023-12-14 |website=Alabama Daily News |language=en-US}}</ref>

In 2019, the Institute for Justice won ''[[Timbs v. Indiana]]'', a U.S. Supreme Court that for the first time that held the [[United States Constitution|U.S. Constitution]]'s [[Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution|8th amendment]] protection against excessive fines applies to state and local governments.