Sotomayor dissents, saying the ruling denies a minimal safeguard
Sonia SotomayorAssociate justice of the Supreme Court, dissenting, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson
Sotomayor wrote that the Court held due process never requires a retention hearing and that the ruling limits lower courts' ability to address abuses of civil forfeiture.
“Today, the Court holds that the Due Process Clause never requires that minimal safeguard. In doing so, it sweeps far more broadly than the narrow question presented and hamstrings lower courts from addressing myriad abuses of the civil forfeiture system.”
Original text
Where this statement fits
Supreme Court rules due process does not require a preliminary hearing before a seized car is held for forfeiture
In 2019, Alabama police seized cars owned by Halima Culley and Lena Sutton after arresting the people driving them on drug charges, and the state sought civil forfeiture. Both women later won their cars back as innocent owners, after about 20 and 15 months. They argued in federal court that due process required a prompt preliminary hearing on whether officials could keep the cars in the meantime. Alabama argued that a timely forfeiture hearing was enough. On May 9, 2024, the Supreme Court sided with Alabama, 6-3.
Source and context
Original text
About this source
The Court held 6-3 that, after a state seizes personal property and seeks its civil forfeiture, due process requires a timely forfeiture hearing but not a separate preliminary hearing. Justice Gorsuch, joined by Justice Thomas, concurred while raising broader questions about civil forfeiture. Justice Sotomayor, joined by Justices Kagan and Jackson, dissented.
Archived copy (opens in a new tab)Before the quotation
Sotomayor describes the owners' argument that, when officers have a financial incentive to keep a car and the owner claims innocence, a retention hearing at least checks for probable cause.
After the quotation
She says she would have decided only which due process test governs and left lower courts to apply it to different forfeiture schemes.
How this statement is classified
The label describes this statement's response within the context above.
Why this label?
The reference point is Alabama's practice, defended by Attorney General Steve Marshall, of holding seized cars until the civil forfeiture hearing without a separate preliminary hearing, which the owners argued the Due Process Clause requires. Label: Condemned. Sotomayor criticizes the holding that due process never requires a retention hearing, calling such a hearing a minimal safeguard against abuse. The closest competing label is Mixed or conditional; it loses because her plan to let lower courts apply the governing test concerns how to apply it in each forfeiture scheme, not whether she accepts the categorical no-hearing rule.
- Recorded on
- Published here
More from this case
Read the full caseMarshall says the Court confirmed the owners' rights were respected
“The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed our previous victories in these cases. Law enforcement officers across Alabama work hard every day to keep their fellow citizens safe while respecting their constitutional rights. And the Court confirmed that those rights were respected”Read statement
Institute for Justice calls the ruling deeply disappointing for property owners
Institute for Justice
“The Court’s decision that government can hold property without any process before the ultimate forfeiture hearing is deeply disappointing given the reality that years can pass by before such a hearing ever occurs. The right to private property means very little if the government can seize it and hold it indefinitely based on untested claims of probable cause”Read statement
Gorsuch joins the ruling but says larger civil forfeiture questions remain
“I agree with the Court that, at a minimum, the Due Process Clause requires a prompt hearing in civil forfeiture cases. ... But if all that leads me to join today’s decision, I also agree with the dissent that this case leaves many larger questions unresolved about whether, and to what extent, contemporary civil forfeiture practices can be squared with the Constitution’s promise of due process.”Read statement
Share or embed this statement
The embed keeps its attribution link to The Dispute Index. Credit the image to The Dispute Index and link to the statement page.
Cite this record
- Publisher
- The Dispute Index
- Title
- Sotomayor dissents, saying the ruling denies a minimal safeguard
- First published
- Last updated
- Permalink
- https://disputeindex.com/events/5685-sotomayor-wrote-that-the-court-held-due-process
Last updated marks the most recent saved version of this published statement.
The Dispute Index. "Sotomayor dissents, saying the ruling denies a minimal safeguard". First published: 2026-10-14. Last updated: 2026-10-14. https://disputeindex.com/events/5685-sotomayor-wrote-that-the-court-held-due-process