Talk:Timbs v. Indiana

needs link to indiana supreme court decision on remand, and other followup
https://www.theindianalawyer.com/articles/timbs-forfeiture-case-back-in-trial-court-for-excessiveness-ruling


 * And more:  the land rover was returned on May 27 after a county court decision in April. Pelirojopajaro (talk) 06:17, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you, added on the subsequent events. --M asem (t) 07:06, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Great. I was planning to do it myself later but you beat me to it. Pelirojopajaro (talk) 07:43, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

slight contradiction with another article
"Since its ratification, the United States Supreme Court has followed the doctrine of incorporation"

But the linked article (Incorporation of the Bill of Rights says that incorporation did not start right after the 14th Amendment (1868), but is mostly 1920s and on with maybe one late 1890s case. Vultur~enwiki (talk) 15:44, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Suggested edits to third paragraph of Legal Background section
There are a number of errors in this paragraph. Here is a brief explanation with some suggested edits to fix them:

Austin dealt with civil forfeiture (not fines more broadly) and only dealt with the Eighth Amendment's Excessive Fines Clause, so we would suggest the first sentence be edited as follows:

The Supreme Court previously ruled in Austin v. United States (1993) that the Eighth Amendment’s Excessive Fines Clause applies to federal asset forfeitures.

And, because the Court hadn’t addressed whether the Excessive Fines Clause of the Eighth Amendment could be applied to states and municipalities until it considered the Timbs case, we would suggest you add the following sentence next in the same paragraph:

The Court had not, however, squarely addressed whether the Excessive Fines Clause protected against fines imposed by states and municipalities or only against those imposed by the federal government. [See footnote 9 of McDonald v. Chicago.]

Also, an important note for the Wikipedia editor to consider:  The sentences characterizing Leonard are objectively wrong. The pro se petitioner mentioned the Eighth Amendment in passing, but, as documented in Justice Thomas's opinion itself, he nowhere mentions the Eighth Amendment statement had nothing to do with the Eighth Amendment. For that reason, we would suggest striking that entire last part of the paragraph, from “In the Supreme Court’s 2017….” through “unbalanced nature toward the poor.”:

In the Supreme Court's 2017 term, a petition for a case related to state-level asset forfeiture had been submitted but the Court was forced to reject it since the petitioner had brought up the Eighth Amendment argument only within the writ of certiorari, which made the case ineligible for the Court. However, Justice Clarence Thomas, in his concurrence to the rejection of the petition, established several factors of why state and local asset forfeiture laws should be re-examined under the Eighth Amendment and identified similar criticism regarding the unbalanced nature towards the poor. Lyrical42 (talk) 15:08, 15 June 2023 (UTC)