Timbs v Indiana FRQ

In November of 2013, Tyson Timbs was arrested after selling illegal drugs to an undercover police officer. Timbs pleaded guilty to the charges and was sentenced to a year of house arrest, five years probation, and a $1,200 fine. 
In addition, the state sought to seize Timb’s Land Rover, which Timbs used to transport the illegal drugs. The Land Rover was previously purchased for $42,000. Timbs argued that the vehicle seizure constituted an excessive fine, which was a violation of the Eighth Amendment. The maximum fine for Timb’s crime was $10,000, which was considerably less than the price Timbs paid for the Land Rover. 
In the resulting case, Timbs v Indiana (2019), the Supreme Court unanimously ruled in favor of Timbs. The opinion of the Court, authored by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, stated that the excessive fines clause is a provision that applies to the states. The Court found that the protection against excessive fines is “fundamental to our scheme of ordered liberty” and “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition.”

Identify the legal doctrine that is common in both Timbs v Indiana (2019) and McDonald v  Chicago (2010).

Explain how the holding in McDonald was similar to the holding in Timbs.

Explain how the decision in Timbs affects the reserve powers of the states.