Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

SCOTUS Dodges Civil Forfeiture Case, Justice Thomas Criticizes

posted by on Friday March 17 2017, @01:16PM   Printer-friendly
from the we-won't-hear-the-case,-but-if-we-could... dept.

shortscreen writes:

The Washington Post has some analysis of a noteworthy Supreme Court non-decision.

In today's [March 6] Leonard v. Texas, Justice Clarence Thomas sharply criticizes civil forfeiture laws. The one-justice opinion discusses the Supreme Court's refusing to hear the case (a result Thomas agrees with, for procedural reasons mentioned in the last paragraph); but Thomas is sending a signal, I think, that at least one justice — and maybe more — will be sympathetic to such arguments in future cases.

From Justice Thomas' statement:

In rem proceedings often enable the government to seize the property without any predeprivation judicial process and to obtain forfeiture of the property even when the owner is personally innocent (though some statutes, including the one here, provide for an innocent-owner defense). Civil proceedings often lack certain procedural protections that accompany criminal proceedings, such as the right to a jury trial and a heightened standard of proof.

Partially as a result of this distinct legal regime, civil forfeiture has in recent decades become widespread and highly profitable.

[...] These forfeiture operations frequently target the poor and other groups least able to defend their interests in forfeiture proceedings.

Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
SCOTUS Dodges Civil Forfeiture Case, Justice Thomas Criticizes | Log In/Create an Account | Top | 38 comments | Search Discussion
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

  • (Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 17 2017, @02:31PM (3 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 17 2017, @02:31PM (#480407)

    Really people, the best background info on SCOTUS issues is the SCOTUSblog [scotusblog.com]. It should be obligatory to include relevant links from that site in any article that summarizes a case.

    The case [scotusblog.com].

    Thomas's opinion [scotusblog.com].

    And a brief blog summary [scotusblog.com]:

    The justices did not add any new cases to their docket for next term. But two justices issued a flurry of public statements regarding the court’s denial of review in three cases. Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a separate opinion regarding the court’s announcement that it would not review a Texas civil forfeiture case, in which the state seized over $200,000 stored in a safe that was being transported in a rental car that was stopped for speeding. The trial court concluded (and an appeals court affirmed) that the state had shown that it was more likely than not that the money came from drug sales or would be used in such sales. Lisa Leonard, the owner of the money, argued in the Supreme Court that the Constitution requires the state to meet a higher bar and provide clear and convincing evidence that the money came from drug sales. Thomas agreed that this was an “important question,” but he also agreed that the Supreme Court properly declined to review it in this case because Leonard had raised her due process argument for the first time in the Supreme Court.

    Starting Score:    0  points
    Moderation   +2  
       Informative=2, Total=2
    Extra 'Informative' Modifier   0  
    Total Score:   2  

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 17 2017, @02:42PM (2 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 17 2017, @02:42PM (#480411)

    If you REALLY want to understand where modern civil forfeiture comes from, you should read Thomas' opinion. It is very clear and well written on what the legal basis is, and questions how firmly that basis really is.

    • (Score: 2) by ikanreed on Friday March 17 2017, @03:17PM (1 child)

      by ikanreed (3164) Subscriber Badge on Friday March 17 2017, @03:17PM (#480440) Journal

      There are some sentences one never expects to read. And I'm gonna level with you: "[Thomas' opinion] is very clear and well written on what the legal basis is, and questions how firmly that basis really is." definitely falls into that category for me.

      I guess he's now free from the icy grip of the "Always concur with whatever Scalia wrote" brain worms now.

      • (Score: 2) by AthanasiusKircher on Friday March 17 2017, @04:15PM

        by AthanasiusKircher (5291) on Friday March 17 2017, @04:15PM (#480478) Journal

        I guess he's now free from the icy grip of the "Always concur with whatever Scalia wrote" brain worms now.

        I've already written a more thorough response to this myth above, but let me also say that it would be helpful to check out the SCOTUSblog stats over the past decade and see the amount of agreement between Scalia and Thomas. While it's high, actually (IIRC) the liberal justices frequently have greater concurrence numbers in most years than Scalia/Thomas. And Thomas frequently authors his own opinions with separate reasoning, even when concurring with Scalia.