Which case established that forfeiture of a vehicle may be excessive if grossly disproportionate to the gravity of the offense?

• A. Austin v. United States
• B. Bennis v. Michigan
• C. Timbs v. Indiana
• D. United States v. Bajakajian

Answer: (D)

The key idea here is that forfeitures must be proportionate to the offense under the Eighth Amendment’s Excessive Fines Clause. United States v. Bajakajian is the landmark on this point: the Supreme Court held that confiscating a large amount of money as punishment can violate the Excessive Fines Clause if the amount is grossly disproportionate to the offense. In that case, the government sought to forfeit all of the traveler’s funds ($357,144) for failing to report them when leaving the country. The Court said such a forfeiture would be an excessive, punitive fine and not a proportional consequence of the crime, so it could not be allowed. This establishes the standard used to evaluate forfeitures: the punishment cannot be grossly disproportionate to the offense’s gravity. While later cases, like Timbs v. Indiana, expand the protection to apply to state actors and can involve vehicles, Bajakajian is the foundational decision that sets the disproportionate-forfeiture test at the heart of these challenges.