Culley v. Marshall

Halima Culley lent her car to her son, and Lena Sutton lent hers to a friend. Alabama police stopped the vehicles, found drugs, and seized the cars under civil asset forfeiture. Neither Culley nor Sutton was charged with a crime, but they had to wait many months for a final forfeiture hearing. They sued, arguing that the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause required a prompt preliminary hearing so innocent owners could recover seized property quickly. The Eleventh Circuit rejected their claim. The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed by a 6-3 vote on May 9, 2024. Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote the majority opinion, holding that the Constitution does not require a separate preliminary hearing; a timely final forfeiture hearing is sufficient.

The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the Eleventh Circuit by a 6-3 vote. Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote the majority opinion, joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Alito, Barrett, and Jackson. The Court held that the Constitution does not require a preliminary hearing for innocent owners in civil forfeiture cases, and a final forfeiture hearing provides sufficient due process. Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, and Gorsuch dissented.

Whether the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment requires a timely preliminary hearing for innocent owners in civil asset forfeiture cases before a final forfeiture proceeding.

The decision was criticized by civil liberties and criminal justice reform groups, who argued it makes it harder for innocent owners to promptly recover seized property and may incentivize aggressive policing for profit. The ruling largely maintains existing civil asset forfeiture practices and raises concerns about disproportionate impacts on low-income individuals who cannot afford to wait months for a final hearing.