In the case of Timbs v. Indiana, 2018, Tyson Timbs was arrested for selling drugs and his $42,000 Land Rover was seized by law enforcement under civil asset forfeiture laws. The Supreme Court of Indiana ruled that the seizure did not violate the Eighth Amendment's Excessive Fines Clause because it only applied to federal actions. However, when appealed to the U.S Supreme Court in 2019, they unanimously overturned this decision stating that protection against excessive fines applies at both state and federal levels due to incorporation doctrine via Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process clause. This landmark ruling set a precedent limiting states' abilities to impose fines and seize property used in crimes if its value is disproportionate to the offense committed.

In the case of Timbs v. Indiana, there was no formal dissenting opinion as the Supreme Court ruled unanimously in favor of Tyson Timbs. The court held that the Eighth Amendment's Excessive Fines Clause is an incorporated protection applicable to the States under the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause. This decision came after Indiana seized Timbs' vehicle following his arrest for drug trafficking and conspiracy to commit theft, arguing that he had used it to transport drugs. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg delivered the opinion of a unanimous court stating that protection against excessive punitive economic sanctions secured by this clause is fundamental to our scheme of ordered liberty with deep roots in history and tradition.