The Supreme Court issued an opinion on Wednesday that is a shot across the bow of defenders of civil asset forfeiture. In a unanimous judgment, the justices incorporated the Excessive Fines Clause of the Eighth Amendment to the states. The Court didn’t rule on the dubious constitutionality of civil asset forfeiture, leaving that issue for another day.

Welcome to FreedomWorks Foundation’s second regulatory review of 2019! Our Regulatory Action Center proudly updates you with our favorite tidbits from the swamp. We want to smash barriers between bureaucracy and the American people by delivering regulatory news straight to FreedomWorks activists. Check back in two weeks for the next edition.

On Wednesday, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Timbs v. Indiana. The case centers around the use of civil asset forfeiture and whether or not to incorporate the Excessive Fines Clause of the Eighth Amendment to the states. Although the Court won’t decide the case until next year, the oral arguments show that most of the justices appear ready to deal a long overdue blow to civil asset forfeiture.

There was no shortage of fireworks in the Senate Judiciary Committee during the first day of the confirmation hearing for Judge Brett Kavanaugh, who has received a "well-qualified" rating from the American Bar Association. Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) hadn’t even completed the first sentence of his opening statement before Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) interrupted, beginning nearly 90 minutes of obstruction by Democrats who serve on the committee and frequent outbursts from protestors in the audience.