Culley v. Marshall

On May 9, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Culley v. Marshall, a consolidated case involving Lena Culley and Jamar Sutton. Their vehicles were seized by Alabama police after being driven by others who committed drug offenses or lacked insurance. The owners sued Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall, arguing that the state's failure to provide a prompt post-seizure retention hearing violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The civil forfeiture proceedings took months or years before a final judgment, leaving owners without their property. The Supreme Court, in a 6-3 opinion authored by Justice Brett Kavanaugh, held that the Constitution does not mandate a separate preliminary hearing. The majority reasoned that existing civil forfeiture procedures satisfy due process because they require a timely judicial hearing before a final deprivation, and that additional preliminary hearings are not required by precedent or historical practice.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in favor of Alabama, holding that the Constitution does not require a separate preliminary hearing during civil asset forfeiture proceedings. The existing civil forfeiture procedure, which guarantees a hearing prior to final deprivation, satisfies due process requirements.

Whether the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment requires a timely preliminary hearing for property owners to challenge the continued retention of their seized property before a final civil forfeiture judgment.

The decision was criticized by civil liberties and property rights advocates, who argue it weakens protections against abusive civil forfeiture and may disproportionately harm low-income individuals unable to afford prolonged property loss. Supporters viewed it as a proper limitation on judicial intervention in state forfeiture laws. The ruling intensified debates on civil asset forfeiture reform and may spur legislative action at the state level to provide earlier hearings.