Austin v. United States
E666883
Austin v. United States is a 1993 U.S. Supreme Court case that held certain civil forfeitures constitute punishment and are therefore subject to the Eighth Amendment’s Excessive Fines Clause.
All labels observed (1)
| Label | Occurrences |
|---|---|
| Austin v. United States canonical | 1 |
How this entity was disambiguated
This entity first appeared as the object of triple T7476633 — resolving that mention is where its identity was fixed. The disambiguator weighed these candidate entities and picked the highlighted one (or “None”, minting a new entity). This is how homonymy is resolved: the same surface form can point to different entities.
NED1
Entity disambiguation (via context triple)
gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07
Target entity: Austin v. United States Context triple: [Timbs v. Indiana, relatedCase, Austin v. United States]
-
A.
Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce
Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce was a 1990 U.S. Supreme Court case that upheld restrictions on corporate independent political expenditures under the First Amendment until it was later overturned by Citizens United.
-
B.
Branch v. Texas
Branch v. Texas is a U.S. Supreme Court case addressing the constitutionality and application of the death penalty in the wake of the landmark Furman v. Georgia decision.
-
C.
Abrams v. United States
Abrams v. United States was a 1919 U.S. Supreme Court case that upheld the conviction of antiwar activists under federal law and is best known for Justice Holmes’s famous dissent articulating the “marketplace of ideas” concept in free speech jurisprudence.
-
D.
Dennis v. United States
Dennis v. United States is a landmark 1951 U.S. Supreme Court decision that upheld the convictions of Communist Party leaders under the Smith Act, significantly shaping First Amendment jurisprudence on speech advocating the overthrow of the government.
-
E.
Yates v. United States
Yates v. United States is a 1957 U.S. Supreme Court decision that significantly narrowed the application of the Smith Act by distinguishing between the advocacy of abstract doctrine and the advocacy of concrete action to overthrow the government.
- F. None of above. chosen
- G. Unsure - the case is ambiguous/there is not enough information to decide.
NED2
Entity disambiguation (via description)
gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07
Target entity: Austin v. United States Target entity description: Austin v. United States is a 1993 U.S. Supreme Court case that held certain civil forfeitures constitute punishment and are therefore subject to the Eighth Amendment’s Excessive Fines Clause.
-
A.
Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce
Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce was a 1990 U.S. Supreme Court case that upheld restrictions on corporate independent political expenditures under the First Amendment until it was later overturned by Citizens United.
-
B.
Branch v. Texas
Branch v. Texas is a U.S. Supreme Court case addressing the constitutionality and application of the death penalty in the wake of the landmark Furman v. Georgia decision.
-
C.
Abrams v. United States
Abrams v. United States was a 1919 U.S. Supreme Court case that upheld the conviction of antiwar activists under federal law and is best known for Justice Holmes’s famous dissent articulating the “marketplace of ideas” concept in free speech jurisprudence.
-
D.
Dennis v. United States
Dennis v. United States is a landmark 1951 U.S. Supreme Court decision that upheld the convictions of Communist Party leaders under the Smith Act, significantly shaping First Amendment jurisprudence on speech advocating the overthrow of the government.
-
E.
Yates v. United States
Yates v. United States is a 1957 U.S. Supreme Court decision that significantly narrowed the application of the Smith Act by distinguishing between the advocacy of abstract doctrine and the advocacy of concrete action to overthrow the government.
- F. None of above. chosen
Statements (46)
| Predicate | Object |
|---|---|
| instanceOf |
Eighth Amendment case
ⓘ
United States Supreme Court case ⓘ civil forfeiture case ⓘ |
| areaOfLaw |
civil forfeiture law
ⓘ
constitutional law ⓘ criminal law ⓘ |
| arguedDate | 1992-11-30 ⓘ |
| citation | 509 U.S. 602 ⓘ |
| concurrenceBy |
Justice Antonin Scalia
ⓘ
linked to:
Antonin Scalia
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg ⓘ
linked to:
Ruth Bader Ginsburg
|
| constitutionalProvisionInterpreted |
Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution
ⓘ
Excessive Fines Clause ⓘ |
| country |
United States
ⓘ
linked to:
United States of America
|
| court | Supreme Court of the United States ⓘ |
| decidedDate | 1993-06-28 ⓘ |
| decisionDate | 1993 ⓘ |
| governmentActionChallenged | forfeiture of a mobile home and auto body shop ⓘ |
| holding |
Certain civil forfeitures constitute punishment for purposes of the Eighth Amendment
ⓘ
Civil forfeitures that are at least partially punitive are subject to the Excessive Fines Clause of the Eighth Amendment ⓘ |
| impact |
expanded the scope of the Excessive Fines Clause to include certain civil forfeitures
ⓘ
limited the government’s ability to use civil forfeiture as a punitive measure without Eighth Amendment scrutiny ⓘ |
| joinedByInMajority |
Justice Anthony M. Kennedy
ⓘ
linked to:
Anthony M. Kennedy
Justice Byron R. White ⓘ
linked to:
Byron R. White
Justice Clarence Thomas ⓘ
linked to:
Clarence Thomas
Justice David H. Souter ⓘ
linked to:
David H. Souter
Justice John Paul Stevens ⓘ
linked to:
John Paul Stevens
Justice Sandra Day O’Connor ⓘ
linked to:
Sandra Day O’Connor
|
| jurisdiction |
United States
ⓘ
linked to:
United States of America
|
| languageOfDecision | English ⓘ |
| legalIssue | application of the Eighth Amendment Excessive Fines Clause to civil forfeitures ⓘ |
| majorityOpinionBy |
Justice Harry A. Blackmun
ⓘ
linked to:
Harry A. Blackmun
|
| originatingCourt | United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit ⓘ |
| page | 602 ⓘ |
| petitioner | Richard Lyle Austin ⓘ |
| precedentStatus | leading precedent on the Excessive Fines Clause and civil forfeiture ⓘ |
| reasoning |
the Excessive Fines Clause applies to sanctions that are at least partially punitive, even if labeled civil
ⓘ
the historical understanding of forfeiture shows that some forfeitures have been understood as punishment ⓘ |
| relatedCase |
Timbs v. Indiana
ⓘ
United States v. Bajakajian ⓘ |
| relatedConcept |
in rem forfeiture
ⓘ
punitive civil sanction ⓘ |
| reporter |
U.S.
ⓘ
linked to:
USA
|
| respondent |
United States
ⓘ
linked to:
United States of America
|
| subjectMatter | forfeiture of property used to facilitate drug offenses ⓘ |
| typeOfForfeitureInvolved | civil in rem forfeiture ⓘ |
| volume | 509 ⓘ |
How these facts were elicited
The pipeline generated the facts above by prompting gpt-5.1 with this entity's name + description and the instruction below.
Instruction
You are a knowledge base construction expert. Given a subject entity and a description of it, return factual statements that you know for the subject as a JSON list of dictionaries(triples), where keys must be "subject", "predicate" and "object". The number of facts may be very high, between 25 to 50 or more, for very popular subjects. For less popular subjects, the number of facts can be very low, like 5 or 10. # Requirements - If you don't know the subject at all, return an empty list. - If the subject is not a named entity, return an empty list. - Include at least one triple where predicate is "instanceOf". - Do not get too wordy. - Separate several objects into multiple triples with one object.
Input
Subject: Austin v. United States Description of subject: Austin v. United States is a 1993 U.S. Supreme Court case that held certain civil forfeitures constitute punishment and are therefore subject to the Eighth Amendment’s Excessive Fines Clause.
Referenced by (1)
Full triples — surface form annotated when it differs from this entity's canonical label.