In the 1994 case of Anthony S. Austin v. United States, the U.S Supreme Court ruled on whether a criminal forfeiture constituted "punishment" for purposes of applying the Excessive Fines Clause of the Eighth Amendment. The court held that it did and remanded to lower courts to determine if such punishment was excessive in this particular case. Austin had been convicted on drug charges and his mobile home and auto body shop were seized by authorities under federal drug laws allowing property related to crimes to be forfeited. He argued that these seizures violated his constitutional rights against excessive fines because they were grossly disproportional to his crime's gravity. The Supreme Court agreed with Austin, stating that forfeiture generally could constitute "punishment," thus falling within the purview of protections offered by the Eighth Amendment’s Excessive Fines Clause. However, it left open what standard should apply when determining excessiveness.

In the dissenting opinion for Anthony S. Austin v. United States, 1994, Justice Stevens argued that the majority's interpretation of forfeiture law was overly broad and unjustly punitive. He contended that the statute in question should be interpreted to only apply to property used or intended to be used in committing a drug offense, not all property owned by someone convicted of such an offense. Furthermore, he asserted that this expansive reading could lead to disproportionate penalties - as seen with Austin losing his mobile home and auto body shop over minor marijuana offenses - violating the Eighth Amendment's prohibition on excessive fines. The justice also criticized how this approach allowed for potential abuse by law enforcement agencies who stood to benefit from seized assets financially.