WASHINGTON– The Supreme Court on Monday agreed to review an Alaska pilot’s claims that state authorities tried to illegally seize his $95,000 plane after a passenger brought a six-pack of beer on a flight bound for a dry town.

The pilot, Kenneth Jouppi, sued to block the seizure of his plane after being convicted of an alcohol-related misdemeanor. The Alaska Supreme Court ruled in favor of the state, finding that Jouppi’s plane was subject to criminal forfeiture laws.

However, on Monday the country’s highest court agreed to hear Jouppi’s case. He maintains that taking his 1969 Cessna would violate the “Excessive Fines Clause” of the Eighth Amendment. Discussions are expected in the fall.

“I am now 80 years old and I have been fighting this for more than a decade because I see it as my duty to ensure that the Bill of Rights actually means something to protect against government overreach,” Jouppi said in a statement issued by his attorneys at the Institute for Justice.

In April 2012, Jouppi was preparing to take a passenger from Fairbanks to a remote village, Beaver, where alcohol was prohibited. The passenger had beer along with other purchases in her luggage. State police officers searched Jouppi’s plane before it took off and saw a six-pack of Budweiser beer in a shopping bag.

Jouppi, his company and the passenger were charged with a misdemeanor of knowingly transporting an alcoholic beverage into a dry community. The passenger pleaded guilty. A jury convicted Jouppi and the company after a trial. A judge sentenced him to three days in jail.

Jouppi’s lawyers say Alaska’s high court examined his conduct “purely in abstract terms” and did not evaluate whether it was part of a broader pattern of criminal activity. And they say it wasn’t like that.

“Few cases of excessive fines will present the issue so sharply; a decision upholding the seizure of an airplane for a six-pack is a self-recommending candidate for review,” Institute for Justice attorneys wrote in their appeal.

In response, attorneys for the Alaska Attorney General’s Office argued that the state Supreme Court’s “factual decision” should be allowed to stand.

“Courts across the country apply a multi-factor test to determine whether a fine or forfeiture is grossly disproportionate to the seriousness of the crime,” they wrote. “Jouppi does not claim that the four-part standard applied by the Alaska Supreme Court is incorrect, only that the court misapplied established law by giving too much weight to some factors and not enough to others.”

Jouppi’s attorneys argue that the state’s highest court’s ruling conflicts with established case law in other courts, including U.S. Supreme Court precedent.

“The Excessive Fines Clause was created for cases like this,” they said.

Alaska’s lawyers said Jouppi has not shown that punishing him with the confiscation of his plane is “grossly disproportionate to the seriousness of his crime.”

“Alcohol abuse is a serious problem in rural Alaska, and airplanes are sometimes the only realistic means of committing the crime of alcohol importation,” they wrote.