Mr. Fisher said there would be no constitutional problem with a state law authorizing such seizures. That answer did not seem to satisfy the justices.

The Supreme Court has ruled that the Eighth Amendment, which bars “excessive fines,” limits the ability of the federal government to seize property. The question for the justices on Wednesday was whether the clause also applies to the states.

The Bill of Rights originally restricted the power of only the federal government, but the Supreme Court has ruled that most of its protections apply to the states — or were incorporated against them, in the legal jargon — under the 14th Amendment, one of the post-Civil War amendments. But the Supreme Court has never squarely addressed the status of the excessive fines clause.

Justice Neil M. Gorsuch urged Mr. Fisher to concede that the clause did apply to the states even if it might permit the seizure at issue. “Can we at least agree on that?” he asked.

Mr. Fisher hedged.

Justice Gorsuch, frustrated, said it would be odd to treat one part of the Bill of Rights differently from the others. “Most of the incorporation cases took place in like the 1940s,” he said. “And here we are in 2018 still litigating incorporation of the Bill of Rights. Really? Come on, General.”