• World News
  • Politics
  • Stock
  • Investing
  • Editor’s Pick
Time And Sales Reporter
Editor's PickInvesting

SCOTUS Has a Chance to Rein in Civil Forfeiture

by February 21, 2025
February 21, 2025

Thomas A. Berry and Ethan Yang

cash gold

Civil forfeiture allows the government to seize assets allegedly connected to a crime, even without a criminal conviction. This process was originally intended to be a tool for law enforcement to target the profits of criminal activity, such as stolen property. However, the lack of due process protections surrounding forfeiture proceedings has allowed the practice to balloon into a government money-making scheme. All too often, law enforcement takes whatever it can get away with via civil forfeiture to fund its own operations.

In Honeycutt v. United States (2017), the Supreme Court took an important step toward limiting the abuse of civil forfeiture. The court ruled that criminal defendants could not be held jointly and severally liable in forfeiture actions, meaning that only the actual recipient of criminal proceeds could be forced to divulge ill-gotten funds.

But now the Department of Justice argues that the Supreme Court left open a loophole in Honeycutt. Sometimes conspirators use a “passthrough scheme” to move money through one defendant into the pocket of another. The DOJ now argues that when there is such a scheme, the person acting as the “passthrough” may be held jointly and severally liable for all the money that she handled, even if none ended up in her pocket.

The Eleventh Circuit has accepted this argument, construing a statute that broadly authorizes forfeiture in healthcare fraud to permit joint and several liability when there is a passthrough scheme. The defendant in that case has asked the Supreme Court to review this decision, and Cato has filed an amicus brief supporting her petition.

In our brief, we explain that the Eleventh Circuit’s reasoning undermines the constitutional principles of proportionality and due process. The Supreme Court’s decision in Honeycutt was unambiguous: Only those who have personally profited from criminal activity can be liable in civil forfeiture proceedings. Forcing defendants to divulge money they never received merely because they acted as conduits in a broader scheme is inconsistent with the Supreme Court’s forfeiture jurisprudence.

supreme court

Our brief also emphasizes the rampant abuse of civil forfeiture proceedings that have become all too common. Civil forfeiture is now used as a general funding tool for the government, going far beyond its justification as a specialized tool to target the profits of crime. Modern forfeiture proceedings often leave victims with little notice of the government’s justification for taking their property. Many people who never committed a crime have lost property to civil forfeiture. And even when a crime has been committed, these proceedings can result in disproportionate punishments. Furthermore, the scope of offenses that can be subject to forfeiture is vast. For these reasons, it is urgent that the Supreme Court impose greater due process protections.

The Supreme Court should grant review in Young v. United States and make clear that there is no “passthrough exception” to the categorical rule in Honeycutt against joint and several liability.

previous post
AG Bondi says violent anti-Israel student protesters in US on visas ‘need to be kicked out’
next post
Trump envoy for Russia and Ukraine calls Zelenskyy a ‘courageous leader’ after Trump lambasts foreign figure

Related Posts

Apple sued by shareholders who allege it overstated...

June 24, 2025

Walmart to pay $10 million to settle lawsuit...

June 24, 2025

Change of Management Role

June 24, 2025

John Hancock to join White Cliff Minerals Board

June 24, 2025

Broad gold intercepts in Sandstone drilling

June 24, 2025

Crypto Market Recap: Bitcoin Rebounds After Drop Below...

June 24, 2025







    Stay updated with the latest news, exclusive offers, and special promotions. Sign up now and be the first to know! As a member, you'll receive curated content, insider tips, and invitations to exclusive events. Don't miss out on being part of something special.


    By opting in you agree to receive emails from us and our affiliates. Your information is secure and your privacy is protected.




    Recent Posts

    • Walmart to pay $10 million to settle lawsuit over money transfer fraud

      June 24, 2025
    • Apple sued by shareholders who allege it overstated AI progress

      June 24, 2025
    • Lagging Mid-cap ETF Hits Moment of Truth

      June 24, 2025
    • The Best Five Sectors, #24

      June 24, 2025
    • This Week’s Earnings Watch: Turnarounds and Momentum Plays

      June 24, 2025
    • About us
    • Contact us
    • Privacy Policy
    • Terms & Conditions

    Copyright © 2025 timeandsalesreporter.com | All Rights Reserved

    Time And Sales Reporter
    • World News
    • Politics
    • Stock
    • Investing
    • Editor’s Pick

    Read alsox

    Deep-Sea Crisis: Can the ISA Regain Control of...

    May 3, 2025

    The High Costs of Eliminating De Minimis Shipping

    February 21, 2025

    Friday Feature: Everything Under The Rainbow

    February 7, 2025