The court's decision in Jouppi v. Alaska took the form of an unsigned order. No justices dissented. The court did not explain its decision.

The aircraft was subject to a legal process known as civil asset forfeiture, under which property, including a vehicle, that was used to commit a crime is deemed an instrument of the crime and can be seized.

Civil libertarians and those subject to asset forfeitures arising from criminal convictions—in addition to cases in which a person is merely suspected of a crime—have long complained that the practice can be arbitrary and excessive.

The petitioner, bush pilot Ken Jouppi, argues that Alaska's plan to forfeit his 1969 Cessna after he unknowingly in 2012 carried beer stowed in a passenger's luggage to Beaver, a village that bans beverage alcohol, violates the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against excessive fines. The state temporarily seized the plane, valued at about $95,000, but it was later returned to him pending the final disposition of the case.

Jouppi said he was familiar with Alaska's dry village system and that he would not intentionally carry alcohol illegally, but that he does not search passengers' luggage to look for alcohol. No law required such a search, and besides, doing so would be "invasive and demeaning," his attorneys at the Institute for Justice, a public interest law firm, said in his petition.

The passenger was carrying Budweiser and Bud Light to give to her husband, who worked in Beaver. As Jouppi loaded the aircraft, state troopers searched it and discovered the beer, saying that at least a six-pack of Budweiser could be seen in a shopping bag.

The state filed charges against Jouppi, his company, and the passenger for the misdemeanor of knowingly carrying alcohol into a dry community. The passenger pled guilty. Jouppi and his company went to trial and were convicted by a state jury. He was sentenced to 180 days in jail with 177 days suspended, along with a $3,000 fine with $1,500 of it suspended, and a term of three years of probation, according to the petition.

The trial court first ruled that the forfeiture of the plane was not allowed under state law because at the time of the offense it hadn't arrived in Beaver, so the alcohol could not be considered to have been transported there. The Alaska Court of Appeals reversed, finding that the state law required forfeiture "regardless of whether the alcoholic beverages are actually transported toward their destination."

The case returned to the trial court, which then ruled that the forfeiture constituted an unconstitutionally excessive fine. The state appealed, and the appeals court reversed. Then the Alaska Supreme Court ruled unanimously that the forfeiture was constitutional "as a matter of law."

The state's dry-community law was enacted to combat alcohol abuse statewide, and the Alaska Legislature "determined that the harm from even a six-pack of beer knowingly imported into a dry village is severe enough to warrant forfeiture of an aircraft," the Alaska Supreme Court held.

The forfeiture of the plane was "not grossly disproportional to the gravity of the offense for which [Jouppi] has been convicted and, therefore, the forfeiture does not violate" the Eighth Amendment, that court ruled.