The Supreme Court case of United States v. Bajakajian marked a significant development in civil asset forfeiture law in the United States. In this case, the Court held that asset forfeiture is unconstitutional when it is grossly disproportional to the gravity of the defendant's offense, citing the Excessive Fines clause of the Eighth Amendment. This ruling was significant because it was the first time the Court struck down the federal government's aggressive use of forfeiture and the only time it has held that an imposed fine was unconstitutional under the Eighth Amendment.
The case involved Hosep Bajakajian, who was found to be transporting $357,144 in cash while attempting to leave the United States without reporting it, as required by federal law. The government sought forfeiture of the entire amount, but the Court ruled that such a forfeiture would be unconstitutional. The Court held that the proposed forfeiture was grossly disproportional to the offense, as it was the defendant's first offense, and there was no evidence that the funds were intended for any illegal purpose. The Court's ruling in this case established an important limit on the government's power to seize property through civil asset forfeiture, requiring that such forfeitures be proportional to the offense committed. This decision has had a significant impact on civil asset forfeiture law in the United States, and has been cited in subsequent cases involving the constitutionality of forfeiture actions.