Block, SkipCaptcha, Automoderated users, edit, rollback
3,026
edits
Changes
new development
Since the ratification of the Eighth Amendment on December 15, 1791, it has been interpreted by a large number of court cases. The [[Supreme Court]] in ''[[Robinson v. California]]'', 370 U.S. 660 (1962), applied the Eighth Amendment to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. Robinson was the first case in which the Supreme Court applied the Eighth Amendment against the state governments through the [[Fourteenth Amendment]]. Before ''Robinson'', the Eighth Amendment had only been applied against the federal government.<ref>Federman, Cary. The Body and the State: [[Habeas corpus]] and American Jurisprudence, page 99 (SUNY Press 2006).</ref>
Since the ratification of the Eighth Amendment on December 15, 1791, it has been interpreted by a large number of court cases. The [[Supreme Court]] in ''[[Robinson v. California]]'', 370 U.S. 660 (1962), applied the Eighth Amendment to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. Robinson was the first case in which the Supreme Court applied the Eighth Amendment against the state governments through the [[Fourteenth Amendment]]. Before ''Robinson'', the Eighth Amendment had only been applied against the federal government.<ref>Federman, Cary. The Body and the State: [[Habeas corpus]] and American Jurisprudence, page 99 (SUNY Press 2006).</ref>
In a case involving [[civil asset forfeiture]], the Supreme Court is expected to hold that the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Eighth Amendment's excessive-fines clause against the states.
==References==
==References==