Several Justices Suggest Forfeiture Case Is Moot or Improvidently Granted
Several justices hearing oral arguments Wednesday in an appeal challenging a civil forfeiture law suggested they shouldn’t be hearing the case.
Six “innocent owners” of property seized by the government say the Illinois forfeiture law is unconstitutional because it does not grant them a prompt hearing to get their seized assets back. Among the plaintiffs is Tyhesha Brunston, whose car was held by the government for three years after her friend was arrested while driving the vehicle.
But the claims of the six property owners have already been resolved, leading several justices to suggest the constitutional issue is moot, according to the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal (sub. req.).
“You have nobody before this court with a live claim,” said Justice Antonin Scalia.
Justice John Paul Stevens, on the other hand, suggested the court took up the issue too soon. The Chicago-based 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals had ordered a trial judge to come up with a workable appeals process in forfeiture cases, but the Supreme Court took up the case before that happened.
Stevens said the case should be dismissed as improvidently granted. “We are trying to get into the case much earlier than we should, it seems to me,” he said.
The case is Alvarez v. Smith.
