Richard Lyle Austin v. United States
The Supreme Court of the United States held that the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution applies to civil forfeiture cases.
509 U.S. 602 · No. 92-6073 · 1992 term · Rehnquist Court
Decided Jun 28, 1993 · argued Apr 20, 1993
Criminal procedure · Cruel and unusual punishment, non-death penalty
Majority opinion: Harry Blackmun
The voteMajority
9–09 in the majority, 0 in dissent
No dissent (9–0)
Reversed and remanded. Richard Lyle Austin won.
What this ruling means
Reversed and remanded: the Supreme Court overturned the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit and sent the case back to that court for further proceedings that follow the Supreme Court’s ruling.
Richard Lyle Austin was the petitioner, the side that asked the Supreme Court to review the case. “Won” means the Court gave that side the result it asked for.
From the Supreme Court Database. A justice who agreed with the result but not the reasoning counts in the majority.
Summary
The opening of the case’s Wikipedia article: what the case was about and what the Court held.
Austin v. United States, 509 U.S. 602 (1993), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution applies to civil forfeiture cases.
Data notes
The text is Wikipedia’s (CC BY-SA 4.0), matched to the case by its citation, docket number or name and year, and is not checked against the opinion. The site keeps the article’s opening section, ending on its last full sentence. The one-sentence summary under the title is the Decisions list’s: Wikipedia’s own ruling sentence, or, tagged “AI-written”, one Claude wrote from this opening.
How the justices voted
Each justice who took part, placed by their Martin–Quinn ideology score for the 1992 term. Filled: the 9 in the majority. Hollow: the 0 in dissent. Colour is the party of the president who appointed them.
Majority(9)
Harry BlackmunWrote the majority opinion
Anthony KennedyWrote a concurrence
Antonin ScaliaWrote a concurrence
John StevensJoined the majority
David SouterJoined the majority
Byron WhiteJoined the majority
Sandra O'ConnorJoined the majority
William RehnquistJoined the majority
Clarence ThomasJoined the majority
Dissent(0)
- None.
Data notes
Each justice’s vote and what they wrote are from the justice-centered file of the Supreme Court Database. “Wrote a concurrence” means the justice sided with the majority and wrote separately; a justice who dissented in part is counted on the side they took overall. A justice who wrote nothing is listed as joining their side.
Positions are each justice’s Martin–Quinn score for the case’s term, the same scores as the Ideology page: negative is more liberal, positive more conservative. A score sums up a justice’s votes across the whole term, so it says where they usually sit, not why they voted as they did here. The median line is the Court’s median justice that term.
The parties
Who brought the case to the Court, who answered it, and how it got there.
- Petitioner
- Richard Lyle AustinPerson convicted of crime
- Respondent
- United StatesUnited States
- Reached the Court by
- Certiorari (the Court chose to hear it)
- Why it was taken
- Lower courts appeared to disagree
Data notes
The names are the two sides of the case’s title. The description under each is the Supreme Court Database’s category for that party, in its own wording. The petitioner is the side that asked the Supreme Court to review the decision below. “Why it was taken” appears only when the majority opinion says lower courts disagreed or were unsure about the question; reasons that would fit any case (“to resolve the question presented”, “an important question”) are left out.
The law at issue
The law the Court was asked to apply, and the kind of power it used to decide.
- Provision
- 21 U.S.C. § 881
- Kind of law
- Infrequently litigated statutes
- Decided by
- Judicial review (national level)
Data notes
The Supreme Court Database codes the main constitutional provision, statute or court rule each case turned on, and the basis of the decision: judicial review of a federal or state law, interpreting a statute, supervising the lower courts, and so on. A case can rest on more than one. “Overruled” counts only where the majority opinion says so.
Timeline
What happened at the Court and how the case got there, newest first.
- Jun 28, 1993DecidedDecided · Decided 9–0: reversed and remanded. Richard Lyle Austin won.
- Apr 20, 1993ArguedArgued · Oral argument before the Court.
- Not datedTaken upTaken up · The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case (certiorari). Lower courts appeared to disagree.
- Not datedCourt belowCourt below · Decided by the U.S. Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit: affirmed.
- Not datedBeganBegan · The case began in the South Dakota U.S. District Court.
Data notes
From the Supreme Court Database: the court the case began in, the court whose decision the Supreme Court reviewed and what that court did, how the case came to the Court, and the dates of argument and decision. The database does not date the steps in the lower courts. Court names are the database’s.
Other decisions on the same issue
21 other argued cases since 1946 on cruel and unusual punishment, non-death penalty, newest first.
- City of Grants Pass, Oregon v. JohnsonLandmark · Other areas144 S. Ct. 2202Jun 28, 2024 · 144 S. Ct. 2202Criminal procedureLandmark · Other areas6–36–3 band
- Jones v. Mississippi141 S. Ct. 1307Apr 22, 2021 · 141 S. Ct. 1307Criminal procedure6–36–3 band
- Margaret Minneci, et al. v. Richard Lee Pollard et al.565 U.S. 118Jan 10, 2012 · 565 U.S. 118Criminal procedure8–18–1 band
- Edmund G. Brown, Jr., Governor of California, et al., Appellants v. Marciano Plata et al.563 U.S. 493May 23, 2011 · 563 U.S. 493Criminal procedure5–45–4 band
- Joe Harris Sullivan v. Florida560 U.S. 181May 17, 2010 · 560 U.S. 181Criminal procedure9–0Unanimous band
- Terrance Jamar Graham v. FloridaLandmark · Other criminal sentences560 U.S. 48May 17, 2010 · 560 U.S. 48Criminal procedureLandmark · Other criminal sentences6–36–3 band
- Gary Albert Ewing v. California538 U.S. 11Mar 5, 2003 · 538 U.S. 11Criminal procedure5–45–4 band
- United States v. Hosep Krikor Bajakajian524 U.S. 321Jun 22, 1998 · 524 U.S. 321Criminal procedure5–45–4 band
- Dee Farmer v. Edward Brennan, Warden, et al.511 U.S. 825Jun 6, 1994 · 511 U.S. 825Criminal procedure9–0Unanimous band
- Donald L. Helling, et al. v. William McKinney509 U.S. 25Jun 18, 1993 · 509 U.S. 25Criminal procedure7–27–2 band
- Keith J. Hudson v. Jack McMillian, et al.503 U.S. 1Feb 25, 1992 · 503 U.S. 1Criminal procedure7–27–2 band
- Ronald Allen Harmelin v. Michigan501 U.S. 957Jun 27, 1991 · 501 U.S. 957Criminal procedure5–45–4 band
- Pearly L. Wilson v. Richard Seiter, et al.501 U.S. 294Jun 17, 1991 · 501 U.S. 294Criminal procedure5–45–4 band
- Whitley, Individually and As Assistant Superintendent, Oregon State Penitentiary, et al. v. Albers475 U.S. 312Mar 4, 1986 · 475 U.S. 312Criminal procedure5–45–4 band
- Solem, Warden, South Dakota State Penitentiary v. Helm463 U.S. 277Jun 28, 1983 · 463 U.S. 277Criminal procedure5–45–4 band
- Rhodes, Governor of Ohio, et al. v. Chapman et al.452 U.S. 337Jun 15, 1981 · 452 U.S. 337Criminal procedure8–18–1 band
- Rummel v. Estelle, Corrections Director445 U.S. 263Mar 18, 1980 · 445 U.S. 263Criminal procedure5–45–4 band
- Ingraham et al. v. Wright et al.430 U.S. 651Apr 19, 1977 · 430 U.S. 651Criminal procedure5–45–4 band
- Estelle, Corrections Director, et al. v. Gamble429 U.S. 97Nov 30, 1976 · 429 U.S. 97Criminal procedure8–18–1 band
- Powell v. Texas392 U.S. 514Jun 17, 1968 · 392 U.S. 514Criminal procedure5–45–4 band
- Robinson v. CaliforniaLandmark · Other areas370 U.S. 660Jun 25, 1962 · 370 U.S. 660Criminal procedureLandmark · Other areas6–27–2 band
Data notes
Every other orally argued case with a clear vote, from the 1946 term on, that the Supreme Court Database files under the same issue as this one. The database gives each case one issue from a list of about 270 (abortion, search and seizure of vehicles, the death penalty, and so on), whatever law it turned on.
Official record
Read the full opinion on Justia, the argument audio on Oyez and Wikipedia. Case data from the Supreme Court Database, Version 2026 Release 01, through the 2025 term.