State Allegedly Wants To Seize Pilot’s Plane Over A Six-Pack Of Beer, Supreme Court To Hear Case

The Supreme Court just agreed to hear the case of an 82-year-old Alaskan man whose $95,000 plane was seized by the state — over a single six-pack of beer.

Kenneth Jouppi was running a one-man air taxi service out of Fairbanks in 2012 when state troopers found alcohol on his 1969… pic.twitter.com/vqa4RhxU0s

— Fox News Politics (@foxnewspolitics) July 20, 2026

Click to expand...

The case now before the court began more than 14 years ago, when Jouppi was scheduled to fly a passenger from Fairbanks to Beaver, Alaska – approximately a one-hour flight. Before Jouppi took off, state troopers arrived at the airport, searched his plane, found the beer that the passenger was bringing to her husband in Beaver, and charged both the passenger and Jouppi (as well as his company) with knowingly bringing alcohol to a “dry” village.

Jouppi was found guilty. The trial judge sentenced him to three days in prison and ordered him to pay a fine of $1,500.

The state also sought to forfeit Jouppi’s plane. The Alaska Supreme Court ruled that the forfeiture did not violate the Constitution. In its view, “the forfeiture of Jouppi’s airplane is not grossly disproportional to the gravity of the offense for which he has been convicted and, therefore … does not violate the Excessive Fines Clause of the Eighth Amendment.”

Jouppi then came to the Supreme Court in August, asking the justices to decide whether, to determine if a fine violates the excessive fines clause, courts should consider the gravity of the specific defendant’s conduct. The justices on Monday granted review without comment; the case will likely be argued in December.

The justices are scheduled to issue their next summer order list on Monday, Aug. 17.

Click to expand...

Alaska wants to seize pilot's plane over 6-pack of beer. The case is heading to the Supreme Court https://t.co/BtT2TQynqb pic.twitter.com/ZDhSQ3hKVs

— New York Post (@nypost) July 20, 2026

Click to expand...

Jouppi’s attorneys say Alaska’s high court examined his conduct “purely in abstract terms” and didn’t evaluate whether it was part of a broader pattern of criminal activity. And they say it wasn’t.

“Few excessive fines cases will present the issue so sharply; a decision upholding the forfeiture of an airplane for a six-pack is a self-recommending candidate for review,” lawyers from the Institute for Justice wrote in their appeal.

In response, lawyers from the Alaska Attorney General’s office argued that the state Supreme Court’s “fact-bound decision” should be allowed to stand.

“Courts across the country apply a multi-factor test to determine whether a fine or forfeiture is grossly disproportional to the gravity of the offense,” they wrote. “Jouppi does not claim that the four-part standard applied by the Alaska Supreme Court is wrong, only that the court misapplied settled law by giving too much weight to some factors and not enough weight to others.”

Jouppi’s attorneys argue that the ruling from the state’s highest court conflicts with case law established in other courts, including U.S. Supreme Court precedent.

“The Excessive Fines Clause was built for cases like this,” they said.

Alaska’s attorneys said Jouppi hasn’t shown how punishing him with forfeiture of his plane is “grossly disproportional to the gravity of his offense.”

“Alcohol abuse is a serious problem in rural Alaska, and airplanes are sometimes the only realistic means to commit the crime of alcohol importation,” they wrote.

Click to expand...