Article on the Culley v Marshall case that recently got announced by SCOTUS. The Gorsuch concurrence hints that a 5-4 majority of the court might want to reel in the practice of civil asset forfeiture.
Direct link to the concurrence [here]
But in future cases, with the benefit of full briefing, I hope we might begin the task of assessing how well the profound changes in civil forfeiture practices we have witnessed in recent decades comport with the Constitution’s enduring guarantee that “[n]o person shall . . . be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.”
And Satomeyer’s issues around it were relative to implementation and who it affects, rather than appropriateness of the law. It doesn’t matter who it affects - if it affects one citizen, it offends us all.
Strange bedfelows, for sure.