SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the we-won't-hear-the-case,-but-if-we-could... dept.
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.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 17 2017, @02:42PM (2 children)
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)
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
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.