Get all your news in one place.
100's of premium titles.
One app.
Start reading
Reason
Reason
Brandon Garrett

FORGOTTEN HISTORY: Due process is timely | History Defined

Halima Culley's college-aged son was driving her car, and was pulled over by Satsuma, Alabama police. After a search, the officers discovered marijuana, arrested him and charged him with minor drug violations. And they seized the car as incident to arrest. Culley herself had done nothing wrong, but prosecutors filed a claim in a civil court to acquire her car, arguing that it was implicated in her son's criminal conduct. It took her almost two years to finally get that case dismissed—a long time to be left without one's vehicle.

Culley argued that due process should entitle people like her to a fair, prompt hearing, before the property was taken by the government. It should not take two years to regain one's property. In Culley's case, when it reached the Supreme Court last term, the Justices concluded that people like Culley had no due process right to such a preliminary hearing, pending the longer process to consider the forfeiture claim. The Justice did not disagree that notice and a hearing must be provided if states seize real property. In an opinion by Justice Brett Kavanaugh, they ruled, however, that no expedited or preliminary hearing was required by the Due Process Clause.

In ruling, the Justices emphasized "historical practice," like they have in so many opinions in recent years. But modern civil forfeiture practices are totally different from anything historically used in form and in scale; Justice Neil Gorsuch emphasized those "profound" departures in a concurring opinion. Now, people who are not even accused of a crime can have their property taken, without any trial, but also without any exigent circumstances. Five of the Justices raised real fairness concerns about such forfeiture practices. They also emphasized that the forfeiture hearing that is provided must be "timely." And that this due process protection protects important personal and government interests at the same time—a very important point. Perhaps future rulings will more directly tackle the due process concerns that untimely forfeiture practices can raise.

Sign up to read this article
Read news from 100's of titles, curated specifically for you.
Already a member? Sign in here
Related Stories
Top stories on inkl right now
One subscription that gives you access to news from hundreds of sites
Already a member? Sign in here
Our Picks
Fourteen days free
Download the app
One app. One membership.
100+ trusted global sources.