The Court has already started loading up next Term's property rights docket, with last week's grant of this cert petition.
Before we go further, a disclosure: our law firm colleague Deborah La Fetra filed an amicus brief urging the Court to grant review. Thus, we're not going to be taking a deep dive into the issues, but will leave that to others. Luckily, lawprof Ilya Somin (as is often the case) beat us to the punch, analyzing the issues in "Supreme Court Decides to Hear Important Asset Forfeiture Procedural Property Rights Case" at the Volokh Conspiracy. Check it out.
Here's the Question Presented:
In determining whether the Due Process Clause requires a state or local government to provide a post seizure probable cause hearing prior to a statutory judicial forfeiture proceeding and, if so, when such a hearing must take place, should district courts apply the "speedy trial" test employed in United States v. $8,850, 461 U.S. 555 (1983) and Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (1972), as held by the Eleventh Circuit or the three-part due process analysis set forth in Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976) as held by at least the Second, Fifth, Seventh, and Ninth Circuits.Will we be following along as the case progresses? Of course. Or you can follow the Court's docket here.
Petition for a Writ of Certiorari, Culley v. Marshall, No. 22-585 (cert. granted Apr. 17, 2023)
