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
May 9, 2024

RELEASE: In overbroad ruling, conservative majority restricts the rights of innocent car owners whose vehicles are seized by the government

WASHINGTON, DC – Following today’s decision at the Supreme Court in Culley v. Marshall, a...
By: Brian R. Frazelle
Access to Justice
U.S. Supreme Court

Williams v. Washington

In Williams v. Washington, the Supreme Court is considering whether states may force civil rights litigants who bring claims against state officials in state court under Section 1983 to first exhaust their administrative remedies.
Access to Justice
April 12, 2024

RELEASE: Court Unanimously Rejects Atextual “Transportation Industry” Requirement for FAA Exemption, Allowing Truck Drivers Their Day in Court

WASHINGTON, DC – Following today’s decision at the Supreme Court in Bissonnette v. LePage Bakeries...
By: Miriam Becker-Cohen
Access to Justice
March 20, 2024

RELEASE: Justices Weigh Immunity for Government Officials Who Target Political Adversaries with Arrest

WASHINGTON, DC – Following oral argument at the Supreme Court this morning in Gonzalez v....
By: Brian R. Frazelle
Access to Justice
February 20, 2024

RELEASE: Court Grapples Once Again with Federal Arbitration Act’s Exemption for Transportation Workers

WASHINGTON, DC – Following oral argument at the Supreme Court this morning in Bissonnette v....
By: Miriam Becker-Cohen
Access to Justice
February 19, 2024

Bakery Drivers Head to High Court Searching for Arbitration Exit

Bloomberg Law
Industry test would add fights on transportation firm meaning With circuits split, high court to...
By: Miriam Becker-Cohen, Jennifer Bennett