Supreme Court Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch recently expressed interest in hearing future cases regarding civil forfeiture practices. The Court’s decision in Culley v. Marshall, issued by Justice Brett Kavanaugh, determined that civil forfeiture cases involving personal property require a timely hearing, but not a separate preliminary hearing. The case involved two plaintiffs from Alabama whose vehicles were seized after police discovered drugs inside while being driven by another individual.
During the oral arguments, the Court debated whether local courts should provide individuals with a probable cause hearing after their property is seized by police. Civil asset forfeiture laws exist in all 50 states, with each state having its own unique policies regarding how incidents are reported and where the proceeds go. Justices Thomas and Gorsuch, in a concurrent opinion, suggested that future cases could be better adjudicated under existing laws and the Constitution. They pointed out unresolved questions about the constitutionality of contemporary civil forfeiture practices and urged for a more thorough assessment of how they align with due process rights.
Attorney Nicole Brenecki expressed concerns that the Court’s decision in Culley v. Marshall fails to provide adequate protection for personal property under the due process clause. While the decision highlighted the importance of a prompt post-seizure hearing, Brenecki pointed out that the language may not be strong enough, considering the slow processing of cases in lower-level courts. The National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB), representing small businesses across the country, criticized the decision, stating that it will subject many small business owners to a lengthy and costly forfeiture process.
NFIB had filed an amicus brief in the case in June 2023, expressing concerns about the impact of civil asset forfeiture on small businesses. NFIB’s Small Business Legal Center Director, Beth Milito, highlighted the vulnerability of small business owners who rent, sell, or engage in cash transactions, emphasizing that they may be unfairly targeted and harmed by civil asset forfeiture procedures that violate due process. The Court’s ruling in Culley v. Marshall raises questions about the constitutionality of civil forfeiture practices and the need for a more comprehensive evaluation of how these practices align with the fundamental guarantee of due process under the law.
