Should a Pilot Lose a $95,000 Airplane Over Beer? Supreme Court Weighs Landmark Case

The U.S. Supreme Court will decide whether Alaska violated the Constitution by trying to seize a pilot’s $95,000 airplane after convicting him of transporting a six-pack of beer into a dry village, KOAT reports. The case could redefine the limits of government asset forfeiture.

A court convicted pilot Kenneth Jouppi of a misdemeanor for attempting to transport alcoholic beverages into Beaver, an Alaska village that bans alcohol under the state’s local option law. He was sentenced to three days in jail and fined $1,500. Alaska also sought to forfeit the Cessna used in the offense, arguing the airplane was the instrumentality of the crime. State officials use forfeiture to deter the illegal transport of alcohol into remote communities, many of which are accessible only by air or river.

Jouppi claims that taking an aircraft worth about $95,000 for a misdemeanor involving a small quantity of alcohol is grossly disproportionate to the offense. His attorneys argue the forfeiture violates the Eighth Amendment’s Excessive Fines Clause. The Supreme Court is not reviewing Jouppi’s conviction; the justices will decide only whether the forfeiture is an unconstitutional excessive fine.

Editor’s note: Updated Oct. 31, 2026. This story is now part of Daily Reports, our New Mexico news roundup, and was revised to credit KOAT’s original reporting. Learn how Daily Reports works in our editorial standards.