Marshall says the Court confirmed the owners' rights were respected
Steve MarshallAttorney general of Alabama, in a news release from his office
After the ruling, Marshall said the Court had affirmed Alabama's earlier wins and confirmed that law enforcement respected the owners' constitutional rights.
“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”
Official statement
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
Official statement
About this source
Marshall's office welcomed the ruling the day after it was issued. The release says the owners had access to the courts within days and quotes Alabama's argument that another hearing would interfere with law enforcement.
Archived copy (opens in a new tab)Before the quotation
The release says Marshall applauded the 6-3 opinion and that Alabama Solicitor General Edmund LaCour argued the case.
After the quotation
The release says the owners had access to the courts within days and that a seized car is returned if the owner is found innocent at a hearing.
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. Marshall welcomes the ruling and says the process respected the owners' rights. The closest competing label is Minimized; it loses because he does not acknowledge a concern and then downplay it: he says the rights were respected.
- Recorded on
- Published here
More from this case
Read the full caseInstitute 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
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
- Marshall says the Court confirmed the owners' rights were respected
- First published
- Last updated
- Permalink
- https://disputeindex.com/events/5687-after-the-ruling-marshall-said-the-court-had
Last updated marks the most recent saved version of this published statement.
The Dispute Index. "Marshall says the Court confirmed the owners' rights were respected". First published: 2026-10-14. Last updated: 2026-10-14. https://disputeindex.com/events/5687-after-the-ruling-marshall-said-the-court-had