Justices Won't Confront, for Now, Scope of Excessive Fines Clause
Colorado's lawyers argued the U.S. Constitution's excessive fines provision applies to individuals, not corporations. "Corporations, of course, do not have liberty rights and cannot be imprisoned for failing to pay a fine," the state's solicitor, Eric Olson, told the justices.
January 13, 2020 at 02:05 PM
5 minute read
A Colorado state court ruling that said the U.S. Constitution's excessive fines clause applies to both corporations and individuals was among the cases the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday declined to review.
The Colorado Department of Labor and Employment asked the Supreme Court in November to take the dispute, which involved a workers' compensation-related fine imposed on a motel owner. Lawyers for Dami Hospitality LLC, represented by Latham & Watkins, also asked the justices to pick up the case.
Dami, the owner-operator of a Denver motel, let its workers' compensation insurance lapse, and the company got hit with 1,698 per diem fines—totaling $841,200. The company's lawyers argued the fine was prohibited under the Constitution's excessive fines clause.
The Colorado Supreme Court in June said the excessive fines clause does, in fact, apply to corporations—not just individuals—and that an offender's ability to pay can be considered as part of a court's review of the constitutionality of the fine. The court scrapped the fine and ordered a do-over that took into account Dami's ability to pay.
Eric Olson, the Colorado state solicitor general, challenged the state court ruling at the Supreme Court.
"The animating purpose of the clause was to prevent the government from using fines to place people in prison arbitrarily. Corporations, of course, do not have liberty rights and cannot be imprisoned for failing to pay a fine," Olson, a former Bartlit Beck partner, told the justices.
Olson, who clerked for the late Justice John Paul Stevens, said any delay in reviewing the dispute "would put the constitutionality of nearly all routine government fines in serious doubt."
The Supreme Court did not issue any statement Monday in declining to review the Colorado ruling. The justices last term looked at the reach of the excessive fines clause in a ruling that applied prohibitions to state actors. That case, Timbs v. Indiana, involved police seizure of a vehicle in a drug-related prosecution.
Gregory Garre of Latham & Watkins, chairman of the firm's Supreme Court and appellate team, had also asked the justices to review the Colorado Supreme Court ruling.
Garre told the justices that Colorado's petition "presents an opportunity to resolve a question the court left open more than two decades ago—whether and how a defendant's 'income and wealth are relevant considerations in judging the excessiveness of a fine' under the excessive fines clause."
He urged the justices to "reaffirm the fundamental, and increasingly important, protections that the Framers adopted in the excessive fines clause against ruinous financial penalties."
Garre told the court: "Regulated entities, and especially small businesses like Dami, would benefit from a ruling from this court making clear that the excessive fines clause protects corporations, too." Colorado's six-figure fine, Garre argued, would "plunge" Dami into bankruptcy and put the motel out of business.
In the Colorado state court proceedings, Dami found a friend in the Cato Institute.
"The text of the Eighth Amendment is structurally similar to the text of the First and Fourth amendments, which also forbid certain government actions, regardless of whether those actions are directed at a natural person or a corporate person," Cato lawyers and and Independence Institute, said in an amicus brief.
The Supreme Court's reluctance to hear Dami's case may have stemmed from a jurisdictional issue.
The Colorado Supreme Court had remanded the case to the lower court for additional proceedings that could have run up against the justices' tendency to review only final judgments or decrees from state courts.
Garre and Olson had addressed the jurisdictional issue in their briefs, arguing that the Dami case fell within exceptions to the finality rule in which the justices have said "immediate rather than delayed review would be the best way to avoid 'the mischief of economic waste and of delayed justice.'"
Colorado's Olson argued that the federal issue, "finally decided by the highest state court, may not be available for later review because respondent may go out of business for other reasons or may choose to dissolve instead of paying whatever penalty the Colorado Department of Labor assesses."
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllFTC Reaches Settlements With Two Companies on Claims of Selling Sensitive Location Data
Deluge of Trump-Leery Government Lawyers Join Job Market, Setting Up Free-for-All for Law Firm, In-House Openings
4 minute readFreshfields Hires SEC Associate Director in Latest D.C. Lateral Hiring Spree
4 minute readLaw Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Justices Will Weigh Constitutionality of Law Allowing Terror Victims to Sue PLO
- 2Nevada Supreme Court to Decide Fate of Groundbreaking Contingency Cap Ballot Measure
- 3OpenAI Tells Court It Will Seek to Consolidate Copyright Suits Under MDL
- 44th Circuit Allows State Felon Voting Ban Challenge to Go Forward
- 5Class Actions Claim Progressive Undervalues Totaled Cars
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250