Can a state insulate its punitive forfeitures from federal constitutional scrutiny by limiting the definition of what constitutes a 'fine' for purposes of the Eighth Amendment?

QUESTION PRESENTED The Excessive Fines Clause provides an overwhelming protection against exorbitant economic sanctions and is fundamental to our system of “ordered liberty”. Austin v. United States, 509 U.S. 602, 609610 (1993); Timbs v. Indiana, 586 S.Ct. 682, 686-687 (2019) This Court has determined that the scope of the Eighth Amendment is broad and applies to every government action that is even partially punitive. Austin v. United States, 509 U. S. 602, 609-610 (1993) Several Courts are nevertheless allowing states to engage in punitive conduct and still evade Eighth Amendment review. These Courts have specifically found that punitive pension forfeitures are not “fines” or “punishment” for purposes of Eighth Amendment scrutiny. As such, these jurisdictions are depriving many of America’s 21 million public pensioners of their most basic Eighth Amendment rights. More specifically, several states are punishing individuals by seizing the entirety of their pensions, and are doing so without any constitutional safeguards. There is also a split of authority on this most important national issue which warrants United States Supreme Court review. The Question Presented is: Can a state insulate its punitive forfeitures from federal constitutional scrutiny by limiting the definition of what constitutes a “fine” for purposes of the Eighth Amendment? I RELATED CASES State v. Bennie Anderson, MER-L-600-19, Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Mercer County. Judgment entered May 20, 2019 State v. Bennie Anderson, Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, A-4289-18T3. Judgment entered on March 30, 2020 State v. Bennie Anderson, Supreme Court of New Jersey, 084365. Judgment entered on August 11, 2021