Timbs v. Indiana
E176646
Timbs v. Indiana is a 2019 U.S. Supreme Court case that held the Eighth Amendment’s Excessive Fines Clause applies to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment.
All labels observed (3)
| Label | Occurrences |
|---|---|
| Timbs v. Indiana canonical | 4 |
| Tyson Timbs v. Indiana | 1 |
| U.S. Supreme Court case Timbs v. Indiana | 1 |
How this entity was disambiguated
This entity first appeared as the object of triple T1538945 — resolving that mention is where its identity was fixed. The disambiguator weighed these candidate entities and picked the highlighted one (or “None”, minting a new entity). This is how homonymy is resolved: the same surface form can point to different entities.
NED1
Entity disambiguation (via context triple)
gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07
Target entity: Timbs v. Indiana Context triple: [Incorporation doctrine, keyCase, Timbs v. Indiana]
-
A.
South Dakota v. Dole
South Dakota v. Dole is a 1987 U.S. Supreme Court case that upheld Congress’s power to condition federal highway funds on states adopting a minimum drinking age of 21, helping define the scope of the federal spending power.
-
B.
DeBoer v. Snyder
DeBoer v. Snyder was a federal court case challenging Michigan’s same-sex marriage ban that became one of the key cases consolidated into the landmark Supreme Court decision in Obergefell v. Hodges, which legalized same-sex marriage nationwide.
-
C.
Gebhart v. Belton
Gebhart v. Belton was a landmark Delaware school segregation case whose rulings in favor of Black students became one of the four consolidated cases decided in Brown v. Board of Education, contributing to the Supreme Court’s rejection of “separate but equal” in public education.
-
D.
Brandenburg v. Ohio
Brandenburg v. Ohio is a 1969 U.S. Supreme Court decision that significantly strengthened free speech protections by establishing the "imminent lawless action" test for when advocacy of violence can be punished under the First Amendment.
-
E.
Maryland v. Wirtz
Maryland v. Wirtz was a 1968 U.S. Supreme Court case that upheld the extension of federal minimum wage and overtime provisions to employees of state-operated schools and hospitals under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
- F. None of above. chosen
- G. Unsure - the case is ambiguous/there is not enough information to decide.
NED2
Entity disambiguation (via description)
gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07
Target entity: Timbs v. Indiana Target entity description: Timbs v. Indiana is a 2019 U.S. Supreme Court case that held the Eighth Amendment’s Excessive Fines Clause applies to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment.
-
A.
South Dakota v. Dole
South Dakota v. Dole is a 1987 U.S. Supreme Court case that upheld Congress’s power to condition federal highway funds on states adopting a minimum drinking age of 21, helping define the scope of the federal spending power.
-
B.
DeBoer v. Snyder
DeBoer v. Snyder was a federal court case challenging Michigan’s same-sex marriage ban that became one of the key cases consolidated into the landmark Supreme Court decision in Obergefell v. Hodges, which legalized same-sex marriage nationwide.
-
C.
Gebhart v. Belton
Gebhart v. Belton was a landmark Delaware school segregation case whose rulings in favor of Black students became one of the four consolidated cases decided in Brown v. Board of Education, contributing to the Supreme Court’s rejection of “separate but equal” in public education.
-
D.
Brandenburg v. Ohio
Brandenburg v. Ohio is a 1969 U.S. Supreme Court decision that significantly strengthened free speech protections by establishing the "imminent lawless action" test for when advocacy of violence can be punished under the First Amendment.
-
E.
Maryland v. Wirtz
Maryland v. Wirtz was a 1968 U.S. Supreme Court case that upheld the extension of federal minimum wage and overtime provisions to employees of state-operated schools and hospitals under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
- F. None of above. chosen
Statements (46)
| Predicate | Object |
|---|---|
| instanceOf |
U.S. constitutional law case
ⓘ
United States Supreme Court case ⓘ |
| appliesTo |
Local governments
ⓘ
States ⓘ |
| areaOfLaw |
Civil forfeiture law
ⓘ
Constitutional law ⓘ Criminal procedure ⓘ |
| argumentHeardDate | November 28, 2018 ⓘ |
| citation |
139 S. Ct. 682 (2019)
ⓘ
203 L. Ed. 2d 11 (2019) ⓘ 586 U.S. ___ (2019) ⓘ |
| concurringOpinionBy |
Clarence Thomas
ⓘ
Neil Gorsuch ⓘ
linked to:
Neil M. Gorsuch
|
| constitutionalProvisionInterpreted |
Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution
ⓘ
Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution ⓘ
linked to:
Fourteenth Amendment
|
| court | Supreme Court of the United States ⓘ |
| decisionDate | February 20, 2019 ⓘ |
| decisionType | Unanimous decision ⓘ |
| docketNumber | 17-1091 ⓘ |
| fullName |
Tyson Timbs v. Indiana
ⓘ
linked to:
Timbs v. Indiana
|
| GorsuchConcurrenceBasis | Agreement with incorporation of Excessive Fines Clause ⓘ |
| holding |
States and localities are subject to the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on excessive fines.
ⓘ
The Eighth Amendment’s Excessive Fines Clause is incorporated against the states under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. ⓘ |
| impact | Confirmed that all three Eighth Amendment protections are incorporated against the states ⓘ |
| incorporationDoctrine | Selective incorporation ⓘ |
| jurisdiction | United States federal question jurisdiction ⓘ |
| legalIssue |
Civil asset forfeiture
ⓘ
Eighth Amendment ⓘ Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause ⓘ
linked to:
Due Process Clause
Incorporation of the Excessive Fines Clause ⓘ |
| majorityOpinionBy | Ruth Bader Ginsburg ⓘ |
| originatingCourt |
Indiana state courts
ⓘ
linked to:
Indiana court system
|
| petitioner | Tyson Timbs ⓘ |
| precedentFor | Challenges to disproportionate economic sanctions by states ⓘ |
| publication | United States Reports ⓘ |
| relatedCase |
Austin v. United States
ⓘ
McDonald v. City of Chicago ⓘ United States v. Bajakajian ⓘ |
| relatedRight | Protection against excessive fines ⓘ |
| respondent |
State of Indiana
ⓘ
linked to:
Indiana
|
| result | Judgment of the Indiana Supreme Court vacated and remanded ⓘ |
| stateInvolved | Indiana ⓘ |
| subjectMatter | Forfeiture of a Land Rover SUV used in drug offenses ⓘ |
| ThomasConcurrenceBasis |
Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment
ⓘ
linked to:
Privileges and Immunities Clause
|
| timePeriod | 2010s in United States case law ⓘ |
| vote | 9-0 ⓘ |
How these facts were elicited
The pipeline generated the facts above by prompting gpt-5.1 with this entity's name + description and the instruction below.
Instruction
You are a knowledge base construction expert. Given a subject entity and a description of it, return factual statements that you know for the subject as a JSON list of dictionaries(triples), where keys must be "subject", "predicate" and "object". The number of facts may be very high, between 25 to 50 or more, for very popular subjects. For less popular subjects, the number of facts can be very low, like 5 or 10. # Requirements - If you don't know the subject at all, return an empty list. - If the subject is not a named entity, return an empty list. - Include at least one triple where predicate is "instanceOf". - Do not get too wordy. - Separate several objects into multiple triples with one object.
Input
Subject: Timbs v. Indiana Description of subject: Timbs v. Indiana is a 2019 U.S. Supreme Court case that held the Eighth Amendment’s Excessive Fines Clause applies to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment.
Referenced by (6)
Full triples — surface form annotated when it differs from this entity's canonical label.
linked to: Timbs v. Indiana
linked to: Timbs v. Indiana