Institute for Justice calls the ruling deeply disappointing for property owners
Institute for JusticePublic interest law firm that filed an amicus brief supporting the owners, in a statement by senior attorney Dan Alban
The Institute for Justice said the ruling lets government hold property without process before a forfeiture hearing that can take years.
“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”
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
The Institute for Justice, which filed an amicus brief supporting the car owners on behalf of two of its clients, reacted to the ruling the day it was issued.
Archived copy (opens in a new tab)Before the quotation
The release summarizes the ruling and notes that IJ filed an amicus brief on behalf of two of its clients. IJ attorney Kirby Thomas West called the decision a big loss for private property rights.
After the quotation
Alban said an actual prompt hearing would help keep innocent owners from losing the use of their cars for long periods. IJ said it would bring further cases in response to Justice Gorsuch's concurrence.
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. IJ criticizes holding property without any early hearing and says property rights mean little if the government can keep property indefinitely on untested claims. The closest competing label is Mixed or conditional; it loses because the statement contains no qualification of that criticism.
- 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
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
- Institute for Justice calls the ruling deeply disappointing for property owners
- First published
- Last updated
- Permalink
- https://disputeindex.com/events/5689-the-institute-for-justice-said-the-ruling-lets
Last updated marks the most recent saved version of this published statement.
The Dispute Index. "Institute for Justice calls the ruling deeply disappointing for property owners". First published: 2026-10-14. Last updated: 2026-10-14. https://disputeindex.com/events/5689-the-institute-for-justice-said-the-ruling-lets