Does it? Or does it just kick it back down to be relitigated at a lower level to define what “excessive” is?
3 Likes
Aha, is that the answer to my above question? The limits for seizure should be consistent with any other form of penalty? So, if the fine for misdemeanor possession is, say $2,000, the agency can only seize up to $2,000 worth of material assets?
3 Likes
If that’s an accurate summation then it just ends civil forfeiture for rich people. If you have modest assets, and are accused if a drug / small-time crime (where penalties are typically sky-high), they can still take all your assets.
3 Likes
If only there were a way to get them to seize your bank, too!
2 Likes
I’m surprised I think was unanimous. It’s pretty pathetic that Gorusch has a better position on this than the Democratic heir apparent.
2 Likes
Yeah, it doesn’t seem like it has any bearing on Civil Asset Forfeiture at all unless the Supreme Court says it does in a future case. They’re very different processes, right?
1 Like
When picking, Trump only cared how they feel about one question: “Is the President above the law?”. Since the list was from the Federalist Society, their abortion position is a given, but the rest might be up in the air.
5 Likes
I would hope you’re correct, but I’m not sure that you are. This doesn’t end civil forfeiture, just “excessive” civil forfeiture.
Anti-abortion statutes continue to gnaw away at Roe v Wade, even when law after law is struck down.
I haven’t noticed this. I wish it were true. From all I’ve seen, states (mostly red states) love asset forfeiture. It’s free money to self-fund state and local police and keep taxes (and services) low. And it incurs “zero damage” if state police are preying on “outsiders” passing through on the Interstates. The only thing that would stop this practice is morality, and, well, you’re dealing with evangelical christians here, so…
4 Likes
Except it was specifically about Civil Asset Forfeiture. And in the majority opinion, RBG states that Civil Asset Forfeiture violates due process because it is a de facto fine, and fines for criminal offences have statutory limits. Therefore, any forfeiture that exceeds the statutory fine limit violates due process.
While not explicitly tanking all civil asset forfeiture, it certainly gives legs to the argument that, in any case where there is no conviction for a crime, the “fine” would inherently exceed the statutory limit.
13 Likes
That’s good news. If there’s no crime or prosecution or conviction, how do they determine if the forfeiture is in excess of the statutory fine?
1 Like
Great analysis, thanks!
If there’s no crime then the statutory fine is $0. So if you take the reasoning in this opinion to its logical conclusion, there can no longer be civil asset forfeiture in the absence of a conviction.
Of course, because of the way the US legal system works, someone will have to be the victim of civil asset forfeiture and then appeal and make this argument in order to end civil asset forfeiture. And that is assuming that at least 5 justices are willing to extend the argument that far. We shall see…
6 Likes
Revenue and control. Crimes against authority are pursued far more aggressively than crimes against individuals.
5 Likes
This is why I think Gorsuch was a bad pick for Trump’s purposes. Gorsuch’s opinions before he was nominated for SCOTUS suggest that he DOESN’T think the President is above the law. In fact, he seems to be very skeptical of abuses of executive power.
3 Likes
Sells drugs. Cops nab his car.
I wonder how many drugs are secretly nabbed by cops. Hmmm.
They effectively could still do that before without asset forfeiture. Levy a fine larger than the assets a person had and force them to go into bankruptcy to pay the fine.
One of the evils of asset forfeiture is that they could fine you, and take everything you might have to sell to pay the fine, then throw you in jail for failing to pay the fine.
Asset forfeiture is often used to double dip (or single dip without ever charging some one with a crime).
3 Likes
Despite having been aware of civil asset forfeiture practices in the US for a very, very long time, it still boggles my mind that something so seemingly blatantly unconstitutional is allowed to occur.
I mean, the original case that set the precedent made sense - it was a pirate ship. Who, specifically, owned the ship was besides the point as it was, itself, the means of committing the crimes. That situation doesn’t hold true in very many non-piracy-related crimes.
5 Likes
The warning is nice. I hope a decent ruling on that is not too far off.
Not really, it “just” subjects forfeiture to “reasonable” limits. So a crime with a max fine of $10,000 can’t result in forfeiture of a $40,000 asset. I expect it could result in forfeiture of a $8,000 asset.
Some states run forfeiture in a way that end runs the presumption of innocence. I imagine this does nothing to address that. So while it would prevent the state from taking your house on flimsy evidence that you did something with a $20,000 fine…they can take a car in the right price range on the same flimsy evidence that they likely couldn’t get a cash fine out of you for.
(but it is a step in the right direction!!!)
3 Likes
on the other hand, the trend among state legislatures has been to try to rein in police on asset forfeitures so perhaps this will work better than with roe.
4 Likes
