this post was submitted on 14 May 2024
23 points (100.0% liked)

Law

365 readers
1 users here now

Discussion about legal topics, centered around United States

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

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.”

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] BearOfaTime@lemm.ee 5 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

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.