Federal government backs Alabama, saying owners have no right to a standalone retention hearing
United States Department of JusticeUnited States government, represented by Solicitor General Elizabeth B. Prelogar, in an amicus brief supporting Alabama
The United States, in a brief supporting Alabama, argued that owners have no due process right to a standalone retention hearing when property is seized for civil forfeiture.
“The court of appeals correctly recognized that petitioners have no due-process right to seek a standalone “retention hearing” when the government has seized property for civil forfeiture.”
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 federal government, which brings its own civil forfeiture cases, supported Alabama. It argued that claimants have no separate due process right to a retention hearing and that timely forfeiture proceedings protect their interests.
Before the quotation
The brief says the United States has a direct interest because it conducts its own forfeiture proceedings against seized property.
After the quotation
It argues that timely forfeiture proceedings protect a claimant's interests and that applying Mathews v. Eldridge would not change that result.
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 federal brief supports Alabama and argues that the lower court correctly rejected a right to a retention hearing. The closest competing label is Mixed or conditional; it loses because the brief's only condition is the existing requirement that forfeiture proceedings be timely.
- 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
- Federal government backs Alabama, saying owners have no right to a standalone retention hearing
- First published
- Last updated
- Permalink
- https://disputeindex.com/events/5688-the-united-states-in-a-brief-supporting-alabama
Last updated marks the most recent saved version of this published statement.
The Dispute Index. "Federal government backs Alabama, saying owners have no right to a standalone retention hearing". First published: 2026-10-14. Last updated: 2026-10-14. https://disputeindex.com/events/5688-the-united-states-in-a-brief-supporting-alabama