The U.S. Supreme Court is currently hearing oral arguments for a case that could potentially upend how police operate throughout the U.S.
On Monday, Supreme Court Justices listened to oral arguments in the Culley v. Marshall case, which relates to civil asset forfeiture and if local courts should provide individuals a probable cause hearing after a piece of property is seized by police.
"Civil asset forfeiture happens when a person's property is permanently taken from them even though they never were convicted or pled guilty to a criminal offense," FindLaw.com states.
There are civil asset forfeiture laws in all 50 states, with each state having different policies on how to report these incidents and where forfeiture proceeds go.
If the Supreme Court decides to rule in favor of the plaintiffs, it may alter the way police conduct seizures and traffic stops in the future.
According to SCOTUS Blog, the case was brought by two women from Alabama, Halima Culley and Lena Sutton, who had their vehicles seized after they were being driven by another individual and police discovered drugs inside.
"After more than a year, Culley and Sutton eventually got their cars back, although during that time Sutton was unable to find work and fell behind on her bills. They then filed lawsuits in federal court, where they alleged that the failure of state and local governments to provide them with a prompt hearing after their cars were taken from them violated their constitutional right to due process—that is, to be provided with the proper procedural protections," SCOTUS Blog states.
At the beginning of October, the Supreme Court began their newest term where they are expected to hear oral arguments on an array of different cases.
Jimmy Hoover of the National Law Journal reported on X, formerly Twitter that Justice Amy Coney Barrett said during oral arguments that the plaintiffs will have a "tough row to hoe" in order to convince the court "to grant more robust due process protections in civil asset forfeiture cases."
"Even Justice Gorsuch, the court's most libertarian member and a critic of civil asset forfeiture, is unsure that Alabama caused the delay here, suggesting the car owners could have immediately filed for summary judgment," Hoover wrote on X.
On the other hand, Hoover reported that Justice Sonia Sotomayor said, "Bad facts may make bad law, and I fear we may be headed that way...What we're basically saying is, 'Go at it states, take as much property as you want, keep it as long as you want."
Newsweek reached out to the U.S. Supreme Court via email for comment.
Uncommon Knowledge
Newsweek is committed to challenging conventional wisdom and finding connections in the search for common ground.
Newsweek is committed to challenging conventional wisdom and finding connections in the search for common ground.
About the writer
Matthew Impelli is a Newsweek staff writer based in New York. His focus is reporting social issues and crime. In ... Read more
