SCOTUS Cracks Down On Legalized Theft

The abuse of civil asset forfeiture has been well documented over the last few years as local governments and police forces have basically turned the concept into legalized theft. In 2014, it was reported that over $5 billion had been seized through the process of civil asset forfeiture nationwide and a study in North Carolina showed that $17 million had been seized from 4,000 individuals, primarily minorities, over a 3 year period.

The constitutionality of such seizures had long been highly suspect and a case challenging an abusive forfeiture finally reached the Supreme Court. In a ruling today, the Supreme Court finally put an end to the most egregious abuses of the civil asset forfeiture process. In a unanimous opinion, the Court ruled that states are covered by the excessive fines portion of the Eighth Amendment’s which declares “Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted”. The state of Indiana had been arguing that the excessive fines clause only covered federal actions and did not apply to the states. This ruling extends that Eighth Amendment right so that it also covers the states using the Fourteenth Amendment’s due process clause, which states “nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law”, to do so. As Gorsuch wrote in his concurring opinion, “the majority,…based on a wealth of historical evidence, concludes that the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Eighth Amendment’s Excessive Fines Clause against the States”. Any ruling that incorporates a fundamental right against the states is an historic opinion and, in this case, Roberts gave that opinion to Ginsburg.

One notable point about Gorsuch’s concurring opinion which Thomas also joined is that they believe the fundamental right against excessive fines should have been incorporated under the Fourteenth Amendment’s privileges and immunities clause which states “[n]o State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States”. This distinction is important because it shows that Gorsuch and Thomas only wanted to extend this fundamental right to citizens while the majority, by opting to use the due process clause, extends that right to all persons in the United States which therefore includes immigrants.

Finally, I presume there will be a lot of small, local governments and police departments who will find their budgets severely cramped by this ruling. But, make no mistake, this ruling is an enormous victory for criminal justice reform and the defenders of civil liberty.