An Alaska pilot is heading to the Supreme Court as he battles to stop state authorities from seizing his plane after a passenger brought a six-pack of beer on board. As reported by ABC, the incident in question took place way back in 2012, when pilot Kenneth Jouppi was hired to fly a passenger from Fairbanks to the remote village of Beaver. This is a dry village but, without Jouppi knowing, his passenger had a six-pack of Budweiser in her luggage. State Police troopers searched the plane before takeoff and found the beer, resulting in Jouppi, his company, and the passenger being charged with a misdemeanor offense of knowingly transporting an alcoholic beverage into a dry community. Jouppi was convicted after a jury trial, and was sentenced to three days in jail. “I see it as my duty to ensure that the Bill of Rights actually means something” The Supreme Court agrees to review an Alaska bush pilot’s claims that state authorities have tried to illegally seize his $95,000 airplane after a passenger brought a six-pack of beer on a flight bound for a dry village. https://t.co/WFJLw8inGv— NBC News (@NBCNews) July 21, 2026 However, the state authorities then asserted that Jouppi’s $95,000 1969 Cessna was subject to criminal forfeiture rules and attempted to seize it. That kicked off a decades-long legal battle that is now heading to the highest court in the land. AP News has reported that the Supreme Court has agreed that it will review Jouppi’s case, with his attorneys arguing that seizing his plane would violate the Eighth Amendment’s “Excessive Fines Clause” and that Alaska has been treating him like someone engaged in a broader pattern of criminal activity: “Few excessive fines cases will present the issue so sharply; a decision upholding the forfeiture of an airplane for a six-pack is a self-recommending candidate for review.” The Alaska Attorney General’s Office asserts they have a legal right to his plane, saying this is serious because “Alcohol abuse is a serious problem in rural Alaska, and airplanes are sometimes the only realistic means to commit the crime of alcohol importation.” They also wrote: “Courts across the country apply a multi-factor test to determine whether a fine or forfeiture is grossly disproportional to the gravity of the offense. Jouppi does not claim that the four-part standard applied by the Alaska Supreme Court is wrong, only that the court misapplied settled law by giving too much weight to some factors and not enough weight to others.” Jouppi himself seems to just want this to be over. In a statement released by his attorneys, he said: “I’m in my 80s now, and I’ve been fighting this for over a decade because I see it as my duty to ensure that the Bill of Rights actually means something in protecting against government overreach.” The Supreme Court is expected to hear arguments in the Fall, with a decision expected at a later date.