Alabama argues a timely forfeiture proceeding is all the process due
Steve MarshallAttorney general of Alabama, in the state respondents' Supreme Court brief filed by his office
Alabama's brief, filed by Marshall's office, argued that a timely forfeiture proceeding fully protects owners, so no interim retention hearing is needed.
Responding to
When a government seizes personal property for civil forfeiture, a timely forfeiture proceeding provides all the process the Constitution requires, so owners have no right to a separate interim retention hearing.
“When a government seizes personal property for civil forfeiture, a timely judicial forfeiture proceeding provides all the process that is due.”
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
Alabama argued that a timely forfeiture proceeding provides all the process due, and that an interim retention hearing could jeopardize the government's interest in the property and ongoing criminal investigations.
Archived copy (opens in a new tab)Before the quotation
The brief opens its summary of argument by addressing the owners' request for an interim retention hearing.
After the quotation
It argues that keeping property during the case protects it from removal or destruction, and that a full adversarial hearing could compromise criminal investigations.
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: Defended or excused. The state's brief argues directly that its process satisfied due process without a retention hearing. The closest competing label is Challenged characterization; it loses because the brief defends the practice on the merits rather than only disputing how the owners describe it.
- 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
Sotomayor dissents, saying the ruling denies a minimal safeguard
“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.”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
- Alabama argues a timely forfeiture proceeding is all the process due
- First published
- Last updated
- Permalink
- https://disputeindex.com/events/5686-alabama-s-brief-filed-by-marshall-s-office
Last updated marks the most recent saved version of this published statement.
The Dispute Index. "Alabama argues a timely forfeiture proceeding is all the process due". First published: 2026-10-14. Last updated: 2026-10-14. https://disputeindex.com/events/5686-alabama-s-brief-filed-by-marshall-s-office