The Supreme Court on Wednesday ruled unanimously to limit the ability of state and local governments to seize property, including through the controversial practice of civil asset forfeiture.

Voting 9-0, the justices found that the Constitution's prohibition on excessive fines under the Eighth Amendment applies not only to the federal government but also to state and local authorities, and that practices such as civil asset forfeiture – where law enforcement can seize the property of anyone accused of criminal activity, regardless whether they're convicted or even charged – run afoul of the restriction.

"For good reason, the protection against excessive fines has been a constant shield throughout Anglo-American history: Exorbitant tolls undermine other constitutional liberties," Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote in the court's opinion. "Excessive fines can be used, for example, to retaliate against or chill the speech of political enemies. ... Even absent a political motive, fines may be employed in a measure out of accord with the penal goals of retribution and deterrence."

The ruling came in a case brought by Tyson Timbs, an Indiana man who sued the state after police seized his $42,000 Land Rover when he pleaded guilty in 2015 to selling less than $400 worth of heroin. Tyson had maintained that he bought the luxury SUV with proceeds from his late father's life-insurance policy, and he has since argued that the seizure of the car was disproportionate to the crime.

"At first it was about getting my truck back because I was mad, and I wanted my stuff back. Now it's a lot different," Timbs told the Associated Press last year . "I was curious to see how often they did this to people. They do it a lot around here, and apparently it's done all over the country."

The Week in Cartoons for Feb. 18-22 View All 31 Images

The decision was widely expected: Oral arguments in November were lopsided , with the justices roundly questioning a practice that had become widely criticized on both the right and the left. In one remarkable exchange, the solicitor general representing Indiana acknowledged that civil asset forfeiture even allowed police to seize the vehicle of someone driving merely 5 mph over the speed limit – or, as Justice Stephen Breyer put it at the time, "anyone who speeds has to forfeit the Bugatti, Mercedes or special Ferrari, or even jalopy."

The justices were also incredulous that the court should not extend the Eighth Amendment to state and local governments, even though it had already done so with other amendments in the Bill of Rights.

Notably, the court's ruling stopped short of calling "the basic validity of the practice into question or impose substantial limits" but it did put "some high ceiling on state forfeiture of property," says Eugene Kontorovich, professor at the Antonin Scalia School of Law at George Mason University.

Nonetheless the ruling comes less than a week after President Donald Trump announced that he planned to draw some $600 million from civil asset forfeiture to fund new sections of the border wall . The money – about 8 percent of the project's cost – would come from the Treasury Department's Forfeiture Fund, which contains proceeds from federal investigations by the Treasury Department and the Department of Homeland Security. As a result, it would not be affected by the Supreme Court's ruling Wednesday, legal scholars say.

"The decision simply applies existing constitutional limits on forfeitures to states," Kontorovich says. "It does not articulate any new limits on forfeitures for the federal government, so it should no effect on the proceeds President Trump is planning to use."

The ruling nevertheless underscored the deep unpopularity of civil asset forfeiture. Though law enforcement leaders and unions have hailed the process as a necessary tool – one that's offered ample funding for everything from new jails, uniforms and equipment – it's also unleashed a raft of abuses.

News accounts and lawsuits called attention to families whose homes were seized despite being charged with no crimes and small-town police departments that apparently targeted out-of-towners in so-called "cash-for-freedom" deals, arresting people passing through and demanding that they turn over their cash and car in exchange for not being charged with a crime.