Consider a property owner who receives a notice from a local agency imposing daily penalties for an unpermitted structure. The penalties continue to accumulate, and the total eventually approaches the value of the property. Can the government legally impose penalties that high?
The Excessive Fines Clause of the Eighth Amendment addresses this concern. However, a large fine is not automatically unconstitutional. The answer depends on the nature of the payment, the reason it was imposed, and whether the amount is excessive in relation to the conduct.
What Is the Excessive Fines Clause?
The Eighth Amendment provides: “Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.” (U.S. Const., 8th Amend.) Its Excessive Fines Clause limits the government’s ability to impose financial penalties that go beyond what is constitutionally permissible.
California has a similar protection. Article I, section 17 of the California Constitution states: “Cruel or unusual punishment may not be inflicted or excessive fines imposed.”
These provisions do not prevent governments from imposing fines or penalties. They prohibit fines that are excessive. The U.S. Supreme Court has described the protection as “fundamental to our scheme of ordered liberty.” It has also recognized the danger of governments using financial penalties to generate revenue or punish disfavored individuals. Excessive fines can therefore raise serious civil rights concerns.
Does the Excessive Fines Clause Apply to California State and Local Governments?
Yes. In Timbs v. Indiana (2019) 586 U.S. 146, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the Excessive Fines Clause applies to state governments through the Fourteenth Amendment. Indiana had sought to forfeit a vehicle worth approximately $42,000 after the owner pleaded guilty to a drug dealing offense. The maximum fine for that offense was $10,000. Indiana’s highest court had ruled that the clause restricted only federal action. The U.S. Supreme Court overturned that ruling but did not decide whether the forfeiture itself was excessive.
For California residents, Timbs confirms that the federal Excessive Fines Clause can apply to penalties imposed by state and local governments. The Ninth Circuit addressed municipal parking fines in Pimentel v. City of Los Angeles (9th Cir. 2020) 974 F.3d 917. This federal appellate decision illustrates how the clause applies to local government penalties in California.
The California Constitution provides a separate protection. California courts have considered both provisions in excessive fines cases. In People v. Kopp (Cal. Dec. 29, 2025, No. S257844), the California Supreme Court noted that both provisions prohibit excessive fines. However, Article I, section 17 remains an independent state constitutional protection. A legal challenge may therefore need to address both provisions rather than assume they have identical scope.
What Types of Government Penalties Can Raise an Excessive Fines Issue?
The Excessive Fines Clause can apply to several types of government-imposed penalties, including:
- Criminal fines. The California Supreme Court has recognized excessive fines review as the appropriate way to challenge the amount of a punitive criminal fine.
- Civil penalties for legal violations. In People ex rel. Lockyer v. R.J. Reynolds, which involved free cigarette giveaways, the California Supreme Court reviewed a $14.8 million civil penalty under the excessive fines provisions.
- Regulatory and administrative penalties. A California Court of Appeal reviewed a multimillion-dollar Coastal Commission penalty imposed on property owners under the same constitutional framework.
- Local government penalties. Municipal parking fines and daily code enforcement penalties have also been examined under the clause in federal court.
- Property and asset forfeitures. The seizure of cash, vehicles, or real property may qualify when the forfeiture serves as punishment for an offense.
However, not every payment to the government qualifies as a fine. The constitutional protection applies to payments that serve a punitive purpose. In United States v. Bajakajian, the U.S. Supreme Court explained that a forfeiture constitutes a fine when it serves as punishment for an offense. In Austin v. United States, the Court further explained that a forfeiture can fall under the clause even when it also serves a remedial purpose, as long as it serves at least partly to punish.
The name given to a charge does not settle the issue. A payment labeled a civil penalty may still be punitive. By contrast, a payment intended to compensate the government for actual losses, recover its costs, or collect an ordinary tax or fee may fall outside the clause.
Courts look at the purpose and effect of the payment, not just the wording on the notice. Whether a particular charge is a fee or a punitive penalty can itself become a legal issue. Not every zoning charge, code enforcement fee, property tax, or administrative fee qualifies for review under the Excessive Fines Clause.
How Do Courts Decide Whether a Government Fine Is Excessive?
The main federal authority is United States v. Bajakajian (1998) 524 U.S. 321. The U.S. Supreme Court held that a punitive forfeiture violates the Excessive Fines Clause when it is “grossly disproportional to the gravity of a defendant’s offense.”
What Is the Federal Gross Disproportionality Test?
Bajakajian involved a man who failed to report $357,144 in cash while leaving the country. The money came from legal sources, and his only offense was failing to report it. The Court found that the violation caused relatively limited harm to the government. Forfeiting the entire amount was therefore grossly disproportionate to the offense.
Courts may consider several factors when evaluating proportionality, including:
- The nature of the offense.
- Its connection to other illegal activity.
- Whether the defendant falls within the group targeted by the law.
- The penalties authorized by the statute and sentencing guidelines.
- The harm caused.
What Factors Do California Courts Consider?
California courts also examine whether a penalty is proportionate to the underlying conduct. In People ex rel. Lockyer v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. (2005) 37 Cal.4th 707, the California Supreme Court identified four factors:
- The defendant’s culpability.
- The relationship between the harm and the penalty.
- The penalties imposed for similar violations under other laws.
- The defendant’s ability to pay.
The court found that the $14.8 million penalty could be excessive and sent the matter back for further factual findings. It also explained that good or bad faith could affect the culpability analysis. A deliberate delay in bringing a lawsuit to allow penalties to accumulate could also be relevant.
Can a Fine Exceeding Several Million Dollars Be Constitutional?
Yes. There is no fixed dollar amount or percentage that automatically makes a fine excessive. In Lent v. California Coastal Commission (2021) 62 Cal.App.5th 812, the Court of Appeal upheld a penalty exceeding $4 million. The property owners had refused for years to remove structures located within a public access easement. The court also found that they had not met their burden of showing an inability to pay.
The different outcomes in Bajakajian and Lent show why courts examine the conduct and circumstances behind each penalty, rather than relying on its dollar amount alone.
Can Property Owners and Businesses Challenge Excessive Government Penalties?
Property owners and businesses can challenge government penalties under the Excessive Fines Clause, but the outcome depends on the circumstances. Courts consider whether the payment serves a punitive purpose and whether the constitutional requirements for an excessive fines claim are met.
Courts have addressed these challenges in several settings:
- Municipal penalties. In Pimentel, the court held that the Excessive Fines Clause applies to city parking fines. It found that the initial $63 fine was not grossly disproportionate, but sent the late fee back for further analysis.
- Regulatory fines on businesses. In Lockyer, a tobacco manufacturer challenged a substantial statutory civil penalty. The California Supreme Court required further factual findings before the issue could be resolved.
- Property-related violations. In Lent, the court upheld the penalty imposed on property owners. By contrast, in Thomas v. County of Humboldt (9th Cir. 2024) 124 F.4th 1179, property owners facing daily county penalties and demolition orders were allowed to proceed with an excessive fines claim. The Ninth Circuit found their allegations plausible. It did not rule that the penalties were unconstitutional.
- Forfeiture. Government seizure of property or money can also raise an excessive fines issue when the forfeiture serves as punishment.
Property owners facing government action may have other legal claims as well. These issues can overlap with the firm’s property rights work and broader real estate law matters.
How Does Civil Asset Forfeiture Relate to the Excessive Fines Clause?
Criminal forfeiture takes property as part of a criminal case against the defendant. Civil forfeiture is brought against the property itself, although the owner may still have the right to contest the seizure. In Bajakajian, the government sought forfeiture in a criminal case.
When Does Civil Forfeiture Violate the Excessive Fines Clause?
In Austin v. United States (1993) 509 U.S. 602, the U.S. Supreme Court held that civil forfeiture under two federal drug statutes is subject to the Excessive Fines Clause when it serves a punitive purpose. The Court looked beyond the law’s civil classification and focused on the purpose of the forfeiture. Bajakajian later established the gross disproportionality standard for punitive forfeitures.
In Timbs, the Supreme Court confirmed that the clause applies to state and local governments, including California forfeiture proceedings.
Courts compare the value of the property taken with the seriousness of the offense. In Timbs, the vehicle was worth approximately four times the maximum fine for the underlying offense, and the trial court had found the forfeiture grossly disproportionate. That comparison is not a fixed rule. A forfeiture is not automatically unconstitutional because the property is worth more than the maximum fine. A forfeiture serving only a remedial purpose also raises a different question.
What California Forfeiture Rules Apply?
California has separate procedures for asset forfeiture. Drug-related forfeitures are governed in part by California Health and Safety Code section 11470. Anyone contesting a seizure must also follow the applicable procedures and deadlines.
The law may develop further. The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear Jouppi v. Alaska (No. 25-246), with oral argument scheduled for December 1, 2026. The decision may provide further guidance on how courts apply the Excessive Fines Clause to forfeiture cases.
How Can Someone Challenge an Excessive Government Fine in California?
The procedure for challenging a government fine depends on the type of penalty, the agency that imposed it, and the applicable statute or ordinance. Several issues should be reviewed before deciding how to challenge the penalty.
What Should You Review Before Challenging a Fine?
Start by reviewing the original notice and supporting documents. Check whether the notice identifies the legal authority for the penalty, describes the alleged violation, and explains how the amount was calculated.
Then review the statute or ordinance cited by the agency. It may set penalty limits, specify how fines must be calculated, or require procedures the agency did not follow.
How Do Courts Evaluate an Excessive Fine Claim?
The circumstances behind the penalty matter. Courts may consider:
- The seriousness of the violation.
- The person’s level of responsibility.
- The harm caused.
- Penalties imposed for similar violations.
- The person’s ability to pay.
The distinction between a punitive penalty and a compensatory charge also matters. A charge intended only to recover costs or compensate for an actual loss may be treated differently from a penalty intended to punish.
In Lent, the court placed the burden of showing an inability to pay on the property owners. In People v. Kopp, a criminal case, the California Supreme Court remanded the matter to allow the defendant to raise an excessive fines claim that had not been presented in the trial court.
What Are the Deadlines and Available Remedies?
Administrative appeal rights and filing deadlines vary depending on the type of penalty and the law that authorizes it. For example, Government Code section 53069.4 allows a person to appeal certain local administrative fine orders to the superior court within 20 days after service of the final order. Other penalties are subject to different procedures and deadlines. That statute is one example, not a general deadline for every government fine.
Depending on the circumstances, available remedies may include an administrative hearing, an appeal to superior court, a writ petition, defenses in an enforcement action, or a federal civil rights claim.
A Large Fine Is Not Automatically Unconstitutional
The Constitution limits government penalties that are excessive in relation to the conduct involved. Whether a fine or forfeiture violates those protections depends on its purpose, legal basis, and proportionality. A large amount alone does not make a penalty unconstitutional. The time and manner in which a challenge is raised can also affect the available legal options.
Kassouni Law represents private parties in civil rights and property rights disputes. If you believe a government-imposed penalty may be excessive or violate your constitutional rights, the firm can review the circumstances and discuss possible legal options.
Call Kassouni Law at (877) 770-7379 or contact the firm to discuss your situation. Submitting a contact form does not create an attorney-client relationship.
Frequently Asked Questions
What does the Excessive Fines Clause protect against?
It protects against government fines and punitive payments that are grossly disproportionate to the gravity of the offense. It does not prohibit fines altogether, and it applies to payments that operate as punishment, at least in part.
Does the Eighth Amendment apply to California local governments?
Yes. Timbs v. Indiana held that the Excessive Fines Clause applies to state and local governments through the Fourteenth Amendment. Article I, section 17 of the California Constitution separately prohibits excessive fines.
Can a business challenge an excessive government fine in California?
Yes, if the fine is punitive. Businesses have raised the issue in cases involving statutory civil penalties and regulatory fines. The outcome depends on the facts, the legal basis for the penalty, and the procedures the business must follow.
Does the Excessive Fines Clause apply to civil asset forfeiture?
It can. Under Austin, civil forfeiture is covered when it operates as punishment, at least in part, and Timbs applies that protection to state forfeitures. Not every forfeiture is unconstitutional, and the claim must be raised under the proper procedures.
How do California courts determine whether a government fine is excessive?
They apply Bajakajian’s gross disproportionality standard and weigh culpability, the relationship between the harm and the penalty, penalties under similar statutes, and ability to pay. No fixed amount decides the question, and courts examine each case.
The information provided here is for general informational purposes only and is not legal advice. Whether a penalty is constitutionally excessive depends on the specific facts, the governing law, and the procedures that apply. Consult a qualified attorney about your circumstances.
