How a 6-Pack of Budweiser Led to a Supreme Court Case

Six-packs of Bud Light, Budweiser and Michelob Ultra are displayed at a liquor store, Wednesday, Feb. 28, 2024, in Fairfield, California. (AP Photo/Godofredo A. Vásquez)

The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case challenging whether Alaska violated the Constitution by seizing an $95,000 airplane after authorities found a six-pack of Budweiser being transported to a dry village.

The case, Jouppi v. Alaska, stems from a 2012 incident involving 82-year-old bush pilot Ken Jouppi, whose attorneys argue the forfeiture amounts to an excessive fine prohibited by the Eighth Amendment.

According to the MacIver Institute, Jouppi was preparing to fly a passenger from Fairbanks to the remote village of Beaver, Alaska, where residents had voted to prohibit alcohol imports. State troopers searched the aircraft before departure and discovered three cases of beer packed in the passenger’s luggage.

Authorities alleged that at least one six-pack of Budweiser was visible while Jouppi loaded the aircraft, leading prosecutors to charge him with knowingly transporting alcohol into a dry community.

Jouppi has maintained that he was unaware the passenger was carrying beer.

The passenger later pleaded guilty. Jouppi took the case to trial, where he was convicted of the misdemeanor offense.

The court sentenced him to 180 days in jail, with 177 days suspended, imposed a $3,000 fine — half of which was suspended — and placed him on probation.

Alaska also sought forfeiture of Jouppi’s 1969 Cessna U206D, valued at approximately $95,000.

The dispute has worked its way through Alaska’s court system for more than 14 years.

Initially, a trial court ruled the airplane could not be forfeited because it had never actually flown toward the village. The Alaska Court of Appeals reversed that decision, and after multiple rounds of litigation, the Alaska Supreme Court ultimately ruled that confiscating the aircraft did not violate the Constitution’s Excessive Fines Clause.

Jouppi is represented by the Institute for Justice, which argues the Alaska Supreme Court improperly focused on the broader societal harms lawmakers sought to prevent rather than Jouppi’s individual conduct.

According to the petition filed with the Supreme Court, the central constitutional question is whether courts should evaluate penalties based on what a defendant actually did or on the worst-case harms legislators envisioned when writing a law.

The attorneys argue that forfeiting a $95,000 airplane over what they describe as a first-time misdemeanor involving a visible six-pack of beer is “grossly disproportional” to the offense.

The petition also highlights a broader disagreement among courts over how the Eighth Amendment’s Excessive Fines Clause should be applied, arguing that Alaska’s approach conflicts with decisions in other jurisdictions and with prior Supreme Court precedent.

The case has also renewed attention on civil asset forfeiture laws, which allow governments to seize property connected to certain offenses. Critics argue the practice can result in disproportionately severe penalties, while supporters contend forfeiture remains an important law enforcement tool against illegal activity.

The Supreme Court is expected to hear arguments during its upcoming term, with a decision likely in 2027.