Matt Walsh Urges Supreme Court to Rein In Forfeitures Over Alaska Six-Pack

Matt Walsh, the conservative Daily Wire host, is urging the Supreme Court to set a firm limit on government seizures of property over minor crimes. His example is an Alaska case in which the state moved to take a bush pilot's $95,000 airplane over beer headed for a dry village.

On an episode of The Matt Walsh Show, Walsh called the Alaska Supreme Court's ruling upholding the forfeiture "the single worst court decision that we've read recently." He said the U.S. Supreme Court "can and should shut down this standard." The justices agreed in July to hear Jouppi v. Alaska, and arguments are set for December 1.

The case asks whether courts have to weigh what a particular defendant actually did when they decide whether a forfeiture breaks the Eighth Amendment's ban on excessive fines. In Walsh's words, the court has "the opportunity to establish some clear bright line rules on where the boundaries are when it comes to determining what fines are considered excessive."

What Happened in the Alaska Beer Case

In April 2012, Kenneth Jouppi, who ran an air taxi company in Alaska, was getting ready to fly a passenger and her groceries from Fairbanks to Beaver, a village that bans alcohol. Before takeoff, state troopers searched the plane and found three cases of beer. Jouppi says he did not know the beer was on board. Walsh acknowledged that a jury convicted him after a trooper testified that he saw Jouppi "opening and closing the boxes while loading the plane." Prosecutors argued Jouppi knew about at least one six-pack that was in plain view.

Jouppi was sentenced to 180 days in jail with 177 suspended, along with $3,000 in fines, half of them suspended. The maximum fine for the misdemeanor is $10,000. State law also required forfeiture of the Cessna, which is valued at about $95,000.

Walsh went further: "The police department wanted a new aircraft, I guess, and so they just took his plane." State statute required the forfeiture.

Alaska Supreme Court Cited 'Grave Societal Harm'

In 2025, the Alaska Supreme Court ruled that the forfeiture was not grossly disproportionate. The court pointed to alcohol-fueled crime, fetal alcohol spectrum disorder and deaths in rural Alaska, and concluded that "the illegal importation of even a six-pack of beer causes grave societal harm."

Walsh read that passage on air and then said:

"It's a six pack. A six pack arriving in a town is going to cause grave societal harm." — Matt Walsh

"They're identifying all kinds of problems that are caused by alcohol consumption in aggregate across the entire state, and they're acting like this one guy is responsible for all of it," he said. He compared it to "taking someone's car when they go five miles over the speed limit on the grounds that 40,000 people die in car accidents every year."

Alaska takes the opposite view. The state argues that legislatures get the first say on how severely a crime should be punished, and that judges should defer to them.

How the Alaska Plane Seizure Compares

Walsh set the Alaska ruling against two earlier forfeiture cases. In United States v. Bajakajian, decided 5-4 in 1998 with Justice Clarence Thomas writing for the majority, the court held that forfeiting all $357,144 a traveler failed to declare at Los Angeles International Airport would be an excessive fine. The sentencing guidelines capped his fine at $5,000.

In the second case, Indiana tried to keep Tyson Timbs's $35,000 Land Rover after his heroin conviction, which carried a maximum fine of $10,000. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2019 that the Excessive Fines Clause applies to the states. The Indiana Supreme Court then held in 2021 that taking the SUV was "grossly disproportionate."

What a Ruling Could Mean for Civil Asset Forfeiture

Jouppi's case involves criminal forfeiture, which follows a conviction. Walsh argued that the outcome will also shape civil forfeiture, where the government can take property without charging its owner with anything. "If the Supreme Court sets this standard, then it will apply to both civil and criminal asset forfeiture," he said.

Walsh did not call for scrapping forfeiture altogether. "It's used to seize assets from gangs and terrorists, even where a criminal case would be difficult or impossible to build," he said.

The Institute for Justice, the libertarian public interest law firm representing Jouppi, wants judges to look at the conduct of the defendant in front of them rather than apply a single rule to every case. The Cato Institute filed a brief backing Jouppi, arguing that the Alaska court mixed up general harms from alcohol with Jouppi's own culpability.

What Happens Next

The justices hear arguments December 1, and a decision is expected by mid-2027. Jouppi has been fighting the forfeiture for more than 14 years.

Walsh said whether the courts will protect "the property you've spent your whole life working for" is "something that we'll find out in just a few months."