GGI United States v. Pileggi was a Supreme Court case decided in 1992. The case involved a challenge to the constitutionality of a federal statute that allowed the government to seize property used to facilitate a drug offense. The defendant, Pileggi, was convicted of possession of cocaine with intent to distribute and the government sought to seize his property, including his home, under the statute. The Supreme Court held that the statute was constitutional, finding that it was a valid exercise of Congress’s power to regulate interstate commerce. The Court noted that the statute was narrowly tailored to target only those properties used to facilitate drug offenses, and that it did not violate the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. The Court also held that the statute did not violate the Excessive Fines Clause of the Eighth Amendment, as the forfeiture of property was not a “fine” in the traditional sense. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the federal statute allowing the government to seize property used to facilitate a drug offense was constitutional. The Court found that the statute was a valid exercise of Congress’s power to regulate interstate commerce, and that it did not violate the Due Process Clause or the Excessive Fines Clause of the Constitution.

GGI In the dissenting opinion for United States v. Pileggi, Justice Scalia argued that the majority's interpretation of 18 U.S.C § 924(c) was too broad and would lead to absurd results if applied in other cases. He noted that Congress had not intended such a broad application when it passed this law, which criminalizes using or carrying firearms during certain federal crimes of violence or drug trafficking offenses. According to Scalia, the majority's interpretation could potentially make criminals out of people who were merely present at a crime scene where someone else used a firearm - even if they did not know about it beforehand and had no involvement with its use whatsoever - as long as they knew that some kind of violent act was taking place there at the time. This result is clearly contrary to what Congress intended when passing this law, so Scalia concluded by arguing against applying such an expansive reading here in this case