The case covered the asset forfeiture of the petitioner's truck after the police found a small quantity of drugs within it and he was convicted on non-felony possession charges.

However, Justice Clarence Thomas, in his concurrence to the rejection of the petition, established several factors of why state and local asset forfeiture laws should be re-examined under the Eighth Amendment and identified similar criticism regarding the unbalanced nature towards the poor.

[7] Timbs, represented by the Institute for Justice, filed suit against the state, arguing that seizing of the vehicle violated the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against excessive fines.

[7] Timbs petitioned the US Supreme Court to hear his case, focused on answering the question of whether the "excessive fines" of the Eighth Amendment apply to state and local governments as through the Due Process Clause.

Observers believed that on the constitutional question, the Justices were weighed heavily in favor of asserting that the excessive fines clause was another right that should be incorporated to states.

[15] The Supreme Court did not offer any tests in their opinions as to how to measure when fines are deemed excessive, a matter that is expected to require additional case law to establish.

While the state appealed the decision, it did agree to return the vehicle on the condition that Timbs would not sell or give it away as the case continued in court.

It wrote, "today, we reject the State's request to overturn precedent, as there is no compelling reason to deviate from stare decisis and the law of the case; and we conclude that Timbs met his burden to show gross disproportionality, rendering the Land Rover's forfeiture unconstitutional.

"[20] The Court's ruling is expected to affect the use of asset forfeiture at state and local levels, a common practice to help partially fund police forces.