Access to Justice

RELEASE: Hanging in the Balance at Today’s Supreme Court Oral Argument: Safeguards Against the Profound Abuses of Civil Forfeiture

WASHINGTON, DC – Following oral argument at the Supreme Court this morning in Culley v. Marshall, a case in which the Court is considering how to resolve claims that a state or local government must provide a prompt hearing to the owner of a vehicle that the government has seized in anticipation of bringing a civil forfeiture action, Constitutional Accountability Center Senior Appellate Counsel Brian Frazelle issued the following reaction:

Although the question in Culley may sound narrow, what’s at stake is whether the Constitution offers any real protection against a notorious injustice: the practice of state and local governments seizing vehicles from people who have not been convicted of any crime, and holding those vehicles for months or even years while trying to obtain ownership of them through civil forfeiture proceedings. As noted this morning by Justices across the ideological spectrum, the forfeiture system has led to profound reported abuses in which innocent vehicle owners are deprived for long periods of the means of transportation they need for jobs, medical appointments, and other essentials.

As we discussed in our amicus brief supporting the vehicles’ owners, which Justice Amy Coney Barrett mentioned during today’s argument, the Constitution provides a solution: its guarantee of due process has always been understood to demand a baseline level of fairness and reliability in legal proceedings in order to prevent arbitrary deprivations of liberty or property. And over the centuries, the judiciary has developed a framework, now known as the Mathews test, to implement that vital guarantee.

The Court should affirm that the Mathews test governs cases in which innocent owners seek to retain the use of their vehicles until the government proves that those vehicles are subject to forfeiture. But above all, the Court should ensure that its decision here does not foreclose due process challenges to other abuses of modern civil forfeiture.

##

Resources:

Case page in Culley v. Marshall: https://www.theusconstitution.org/litigation/culley-v-marshall/

##

Constitutional Accountability Center is a nonpartisan think tank and public interest law firm dedicated to fulfilling the progressive promise of the Constitution’s text, history, and values. Visit CAC’s website at www.theusconstitution.org.

##

More from Access to Justice

Access to Justice
U.S. Supreme Court

Galette v. New Jersey Transit Corp. and New Jersey Transit Corp. v. Colt

In Galette v. New Jersey Transit Corporation and New Jersey Transit Corporation v. Colt, the Supreme Court is considering whether state-affiliated corporations have sovereign immunity.
Access to Justice
October 6, 2025

RELEASE: Supreme Court Considers the Scope of a Defendant’s Sixth Amendment Right to Counsel

WASHINGTON, DC – Following oral argument at the Supreme Court this morning in Villarreal v....
Access to Justice
June 12, 2025

CAC Release: In a Narrow, Unanimous Decision, Supreme Court Gives Victims of Wrong-House Raid Another Chance to Hold the Government Accountable

WASHINGTON, DC – Following today’s decision at the Supreme Court in Martin v. United States,...
Access to Justice
U.S. Supreme Court

Villarreal v. Texas

In Villarreal v. Texas, the Supreme Court is considering whether a defendant’s constitutional right to assistance of counsel is violated by a court order prohibiting the defendant and his counsel from discussing the defendant’s testimony...
Access to Justice
April 29, 2025

Supreme Court signals narrow path forward in mistaken FBI raid case

Washington Examiner
The Supreme Court on Tuesday appeared likely to issue a narrow decision in the case of an...
Access to Justice
April 29, 2025

Martin V. USA tackles wrong-house raid, government accountability

Local News Live
  WASHINGTON (Gray DC) - The government’s argument Tuesday was that they shouldn’t have to...