The U.S. Supreme Court case Ferris J. Alexander, Sr. v United States in 1992 centered around the issue of forfeiture laws related to obscenity crimes and whether they violated the First Amendment or constituted an excessive fine under the Eighth Amendment. The defendant, Ferris J. Alexander Sr., was a businessman who owned several adult bookstores and theaters from which he sold obscene materials - a violation of federal law for which he was convicted on multiple counts after his businesses were seized by authorities under racketeering statutes (RICO). In his appeal to the Supreme Court, Alexander argued that these seizures amounted to "prior restraint" on speech protected by the First Amendment and also represented an excessive fine prohibited by the Eighth Amendment. However, in its decision, the court rejected both arguments: it ruled that because obscenity is not protected speech under existing jurisprudence, no prior restraint had occurred; moreover it found that given Alexander's extensive criminal activity over many years involving substantial profits from illegal sales of obscene material , seizure did not constitute an excessive fine within meaning of Eighth amendment.

In the dissenting opinion for Ferris J. Alexander, Sr. v. United States (1992), Justice Harry Blackmun argued that the forfeiture of all assets from a business convicted of obscenity charges was excessive and violated the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. He contended that while some form of penalty was appropriate, total asset forfeiture could be devastating to innocent third parties such as employees or shareholders who had no involvement in any illegal activities carried out by management or owners. Furthermore, he expressed concern about potential misuse of this ruling to target other businesses under different circumstances where full asset seizure might not be justified but could still occur due to broad interpretation.