A constitutional provision prohibiting the imposition of excessive fines extends beyond the federal government to states and cities, the Supreme Court ruled Wednesday.

The high court's unanimous decision expanding the Eighth Amendment's excessive fines clause delivered a victory to an Indiana man who challenged the state’s seizure of his $42,000 Land Rover. The ruling means in states and cities — like the feds — the amount of the forfeiture must bear some relationship to the gravity of the offense that it is designed to punish.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who returned to the bench for the first time since undergoing lung cancer surgery in December, wrote the opinion.

“For good reason, the protection against excessive fines has been a constant shield throughout Anglo-American history: Exorbitant tolls undermine other constitutional liberties,” Ginsburg wrote.

The justices heard oral arguments in the case in November, which raised the question of whether the Eighth Amendment’s excessive fines clause should be applied to the states under the 14th Amendment — the Reconstruction-era constitutional change broadly expanding citizenship rights.

While the Bill of Rights originally applied only to the federal government when enacted, the Supreme Court has since ruled that provisions of the Bill of Rights apply to the states under the 14th Amendment, with the exception of a few. In a 2010 case, the Supreme Court ruled the 14th Amendment prevents the states, as well as the federal government, from infringing on the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense.

At the center of the Eighth Amendment case is Tyson Timbs, a 37-year-old machinist from Marion, Ind., whose Land Rover was seized by the state after he was arrested on his way to sell heroin, to what turned out to be to undercover police officers.

Timbs twice previously sold drugs to undercover officers. The Land Rover was purchased for roughly $42,000 with money Timbs received from his father’s life insurance policy after his death in 2012.

After his arrest, Timbs pleaded guilty to one count of dealing in a controlled substance. He was sentenced to one year of home detention and five years of probation, and had to pay court fees and fines totaling $1,200.

The state then moved to take Timbs’ Land Rover using civil forfeiture, which gives law enforcement the power to seize property if they suspect it’s tied to criminal activity.

Following his guilty plea, a trial court in Indiana and the Indiana Court of Appeals found that taking the Land Rover would be “grossly disproportional to the gravity” of Timbs’ offense — and unconstitutional under the Constitution's excessive fines clause.

The trial judge noted Timbs’ vehicle was worth roughly four times the maximum monetary fine of $10,000 the state could have levied against him for his crimes.

But the Indiana Supreme Court disagreed, and said the Supreme Court “has never held that the states are subject to the Excessive Fines Clause.”

The justices sent Timbs' case back to the lower court for further proceedings.

“Protection against excessive punitive economic sanctions secured by the clause is, to repeat, both ‘fundamental to our scheme of ordered liberty’ and ‘deeply rooted in this nation’s history and tradition,’” Ginsburg wrote.

During oral arguments, the justices seemed poised to rule in Timbs’ favor, paving the way for him to get his Land Rover back.

The case brought together a diverse coalition who supported Timbs, uniting the American Civil Liberties Union and the Southern Poverty Law Center with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and Americans for Prosperity.