GableGotwals Files Amicus Brief at U.S. Supreme Court on Behalf of Former U.S. Attorneys in Excessive Fines Clause Case

October 14, 2026 | GableGotwals filed an amicus curiae brief on October 13, 2026, at the U.S. Supreme Court on behalf of 12 former presidentially appointed United States Attorneys, in support of the respondent in Kenneth J. Jouppi v. Alaska. The case examines whether Alaska’s mandatory forfeiture of an aircraft used to carry alcohol into a “dry” Alaska Native village violates the Eighth Amendment’s Excessive Fines Clause.

Kenneth Jouppi is a commercial air-taxi operator. A jury found that he knowingly allowed beer onto his aircraft for a flight to Beaver, a Gwich’in village of fewer than 100 residents on the Yukon River. Beaver can be reached only by air, and its residents had voted to prohibit the importation of alcohol. Under Alaska law, his aircraft was forfeited. The Alaska Supreme Court upheld the forfeiture, concluding it was not grossly disproportional to the gravity of the offense. Jouppi petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for review, and the Court granted certiorari.

The amici served across three presidential administrations and 11 federal judicial districts, and each has prosecuted crimes in Indian country. GableGotwals’ brief was written by Shareholder and former U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Oklahoma R. Trent Shores, who serves as Counsel of Record, along with Shareholder Amelia A. Fogleman, and Associates Bailey C. Tulloch and Tristan M. Reagan. Drawing on the amici’s experience prosecuting homicide, sexual assault, and domestic violence in tribal communities, the brief argues that the forfeiture is proportional to the gravity of the offense.

The brief explains that the Alaska Legislature acted on decades of studies linking alcohol to most violent crime in rural Alaska, where many villages lack local law enforcement and are hours or days from emergency help. In placing its strongest sanction on aircraft, the main gateway into remote villages, the Legislature made a judgment that deserves substantial deference. The brief also shows that forfeiting conveyances used to bring liquor into Native communities is a deep-rooted part of federal law. Congress has authorized it since the Trade and Intercourse Act of 1834, and Alaska’s local-option statutes fill that role for villages that federal law does not reach. Further, the brief contends that the gravity of the offense turns on the harm it threatens to an isolated community that voted to go dry, not on the retail value of the beer. Finally, it argues that the petitioner’s proposed rule would undermine the one sanction that reaches those with the means to defeat a village’s choice.

“The people of Beaver made a choice to protect their community. The Alaska Legislature gave that choice the teeth it needs, and the Constitution doesn’t require courts to second-guess it,” said Fogleman.

“This brief brings together former U.S. Attorneys from both parties and across the country who share a common understanding of what is at stake for remote Native communities,” Shores said. “We are honored to represent them before the Court.”

The brief urges the Court to affirm the judgment of the Alaska Supreme Court.

About GableGotwals

GableGotwals attorneys have represented Native American tribes, their leaders, vendors, and commercial organizations in federal, state, and tribal courts and before administrative agencies, and have argued on behalf of Indian rights before the United States Supreme Court. The Firm’s Native American Practice is ranked Band 1 by Chambers & Partners, which describes the team as a “well-established Oklahoma firm with expertise in all areas of legal disputes, representing Indian tribes, vendors, their leaders and organizations in federal, state and tribal courts.” GableGotwals is also named a “Firm to Watch” in Native American Law by Legal 500.