Principles and the Courts

A recent article on Texas Public Radio illustrates what happens when the courts abandon one of their primary responsibilities: defining legal principles. Referring to a recent case in which the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Constitution’s prohibition on excessive fines applies to the states, the article notes:

“It’s a landmark ruling because it made clear that the states have to comply with the excessive fines clause” of the Bill of Rights, says Wesley Hottot, the Institute for Justice lawyer who argued the case. But what’s still undetermined is what constitutes an “excessive fine.”

Which means, everyone, including untold victims, must wait until the Court decides to define “excessive fines.” In the meantime, how many lives will be destroyed?

Absent a clearly defined principle, law enforcement and prosecutors can carry on as before. They can continue to seize property through civil asset forfeiture with virtual impunity. Until another victim manages to patiently wade through the system with the hope of reaching the Supreme Court, nobody will know what is an “excessive fine.”

For decades, the Court has refused to issue legal principles. Instead, it issues narrow rulings that apply to a very specific set of circumstances–circumstances that are unlikely to be repeated.

The result is that everyone–law enforcement, prosecutors, lower courts, and the public–is left floundering. Nobody knows what is legal and what isn’t, and we won’t know until the Court rules years or decades down the road.

The Supreme Court is the highest court in the land. It is time that it started acting like it and issued rulings based on clearly stated legal principles.