ALEXANDER v. UNITED STATES

Legal Principle at Issue

Whether the asset forfeiture provisions in the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), when applied as punishment following a conviction for obscenity, violate the First Amendment as an unconstitutional prior restraint on speech or the Eighth Amendment as an excessive fine.

Action

Vacated and remanded. Petitioning party did not receive a favorable disposition.

Facts/Syllabus

After a full criminal trial, petitioner Ferris J. Alexander, Sr., the owner of numerous businesses dealing in sexually explicit materials, was convicted of violating federal obscenity laws and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO). The obscenity convictions, based on a finding that seven items sold at several stores were obscene, were the predicates for his RICO convictions. In addition to imposing a prison term and fine, the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota ordered petitioner, as punishment for the RICO violations, to forfeit his businesses and almost $9 million acquired through racketeering activity. 

In affirming the forfeiture order, the U.S. Court of Appeals rejected petitioner's arguments that RICO's forfeiture provisions constitute a prior restraint on speech and were overbroad. The court also held that the forfeiture did not violate the Eighth Amendment, concluding that proportionality review is not required of any sentence less than life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. It did not consider whether the forfeiture was disproportionate or "excessive."