Alaska Lawmakers Back Plane Forfeiture

PHOTO CAPTION: A Cessna 206 flies over remote terrain. Air Force veteran and former Alaska bush pilot Ken Jouppi is fighting the state’s effort to forfeit his own 1969 Cessna U206D, valued at about $95,000, in a case now before the U.S. Supreme Court. Aircraft shown is illustrative. (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service)

Alaska lawmakers are joining a U.S. Supreme Court fight over whether the state can permanently take a retired Air Force veteran’s $95,000 airplane as punishment for a misdemeanor involving beer found aboard his aircraft before a flight to a dry Alaska village.

The Alaska Legislature’s joint House-Senate Legislative Council voted Sept. 10 to hire outside counsel to file a friend-of-the-court brief supporting the state in Jouppi v. Alaska, adding another player to a case that could determine how courts decide when government forfeitures become unconstitutionally excessive.

The dispute traces back to April 2012.

Kenneth “Ken” Jouppi, an Air Force veteran who later became an Alaska bush pilot, was preparing to fly a passenger and her groceries from Fairbanks to Beaver, a community that prohibits alcohol importation. State troopers searched the aircraft before it left the airport and discovered beer among the passenger’s belongings.

There were 72 cans of beer aboard the aircraft.

But that number requires an important distinction.

The Alaska Supreme Court said a trial court found Jouppi had been willfully blind to a six-pack that was clearly visible, while never determining whether he was criminally culpable for the other 66 beers. The state high court ultimately concluded that distinction did not make forfeiture of the airplane constitutionally excessive.

Jouppi and his air-taxi company were convicted of unlawfully transporting alcohol into a local-option community.

For the misdemeanor offense, Jouppi received the statutory minimum punishment of three days in jail and a $1,500 fine.

Then came the airplane.

Alaska law required forfeiture of an aircraft used in the offense, and the state has spent more than a decade seeking permanent forfeiture of Jouppi’s 1969 Cessna U206D, valued in the litigation at approximately $95,000.

The case bounced through Alaska’s courts for years.

A trial judge at one point concluded that taking the entire airplane would violate the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on excessive fines. But in April 2025, the Alaska Supreme Court disagreed and held that full forfeiture was constitutionally permissible.

The state court emphasized the serious consequences Alaska associates with illegally importing alcohol into remote communities, including crime, addiction, health problems and death.

It also concluded that the state legislature had determined that illegally importing even a six-pack of beer into a dry community could justify forfeiture of an aircraft used in the offense.

Jouppi took the dispute to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The justices agreed on July 20 to hear his appeal. The case is now scheduled for oral argument on Dec. 1, 2026.

The constitutional question goes beyond whether Alaska takes one Cessna.

Jouppi argues that when courts decide whether a financial punishment is “grossly disproportional” under the Eighth Amendment, they must evaluate the seriousness of what the particular defendant actually did, rather than looking principally at the broader social harm associated with the type of crime.

Alaska argues that illegal alcohol importation poses particularly serious problems in remote communities and that forfeiture of aircraft used for bootlegging is a legitimate punishment selected by the state legislature.

Now Alaska lawmakers are formally entering that fight.

On Sept. 10, the Legislative Council voted to retain an outside attorney to prepare an amicus brief supporting Alaska’s position. Lawmakers said the filing could give the Supreme Court additional context about Alaska’s history with illegal alcohol trafficking and the unique role aircraft play in moving people and goods into remote communities.

The same week has brought a flood of outside interest in the case.

The Supreme Court docket shows numerous organizations and legal scholars filing briefs on Sept. 9 and Sept. 10 as the justices prepare to hear the case later this year.

For Jouppi, the dispute has lasted roughly 14 years.

Before becoming a bush pilot, he served four years in the U.S. Air Force, primarily working as a B-52 mechanic, according to the Institute for Justice, which represents him before the Supreme Court. He later moved to Alaska and operated his own air-taxi business.

Federal aviation records still identify Jouppi as the registered owner of the Cessna U206D at the center of the dispute.

The Supreme Court will now have to decide where the Eighth Amendment draws the line between a lawful forfeiture and a punishment so disproportionate that it becomes an excessive fine.

For Jouppi, that constitutional question has a very tangible value:

one $95,000 airplane.

Sources: U.S. Supreme Court; Alaska Supreme Court; Alaska Beacon; FAA

(Source: OAF Nation)