In the 1992 case Richard Lyle Austin v. United States, the U.S Supreme Court ruled that forfeiture of property under federal law did not violate the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against excessive fines. The court held that this amendment does not limit forfeitures to cases where its application is solely remedial or compensatory, but also applies when it serves punitive purposes. In this case, Austin had pleaded guilty to drug charges and his mobile home and auto body shop were seized by authorities as they were deemed instrumentalities of his crimes. He argued that these seizures constituted an "excessive fine" under the Eighth Amendment because their value far exceeded any potential maximum fine for his offenses. However, in a unanimous decision led by Justice Harry Blackmun, the court disagreed with Austin’s argument stating that forfeiture laws serve both remedial and deterrent purposes.

In the dissenting opinion for Richard Lyle Austin v. United States, Justice Harry Blackmun argued that the majority's interpretation of "involving" in 21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(7) was too broad and could lead to unjust outcomes. He contended that this interpretation would allow forfeiture of property even if it played a minor role in drug-related crimes or if its owner had no knowledge of such activities occurring on their property. Furthermore, he disagreed with the majority's view that Congress intended such an expansive reading when drafting this law, arguing instead they meant to target properties significantly involved in illegal drug trade operations rather than those tangentially connected at best. This perspective emphasized fairness and proportionality between crime severity and punishment imposed.