Supreme Court Delivers Unanimous Victory for Asset Forfeiture Challenge

[phill4paul]

Wow. Unanimous. Pretty solid win.


States are bound by the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against excessive fines and fees when they seek to seize property or other assets from individuals charged or convicted of a crime, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously on Wednesday.

It's a decision that hands a major victory to critics of civil asset forfeiture, and it opens another avenue to legal challenges against that widely used (and often abused) practice by which states and local governments can seize cars, cash, homes, and pretty much anything else that is suspected of being used to commit a crime.

The case before the Supreme Court, Timbs v. Indiana, involved the seizure of a $42,000 Land Rover SUV from Tyson Timbs, who was arrested in 2015 for selling heroin to undercover police officers. He pleaded guilty to his crimes and was sentenced to one year of house arrest and five years of probation. On top of that, the state of Indiana seized his 2012 Land Rover—which he had purchased with money received from his late father's life insurance payout, not with the proceeds of drug sales—on the ground that it had been used to commit a crime.

Timbs challenged that seizure, arguing that taking his vehicle amounted to an additional fine on top of the sentence he had already received. The Indiana Supreme Court rejected that argument, solely because the U.S. Supreme Court had never explicitly stated that the Eighth Amendment applied to the states.

On Wednesday, the high court did exactly that.

"For good reason, the protection against excessive fines has been a constant shield throughout Anglo-American history," wrote Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg in the opinion. "Excessive fines can be used, for example, to retaliate against or chill the speech of political enemies," she wrote, or can become sources of revenue disconnected from the criminal justice system.

https://reason.com/blog/2019/02/20/supreme-court-delivers-unanimous-victory?fbclid=IwAR1mxgR7IrOXjpRAqEQLegHRU8l260HHB mrRQENwDkq3cGHRavUcYcwDQys

Now for the next question. Are States bound by the Second?

[Sonny Tufts]

Now for the next question. Are States bound by the Second?

Yes. See McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010).

[phill4paul]

Yes. See McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010).

Then it seems to me certain laws such as concealed carry, banning of large capacity magazines, etc. could be challenged using this ruling as a guideline.

[Sonny Tufts]

Then it seems to me certain laws such as concealed carry, banning of large capacity magazines, etc. could be challenged using this ruling as a guideline.

They have been.


In Ezell v. Chicago, decided July 6, 2011, the Seventh Circuit reversed a district court decision that the post-McDonald measures adopted by the City of Chicago were constitutional. The Chicago law required firearms training in a shooting range in order to obtain a gun permit, but also banned shooting ranges within the City of Chicago. The City had argued that applicants could obtain their training at gun ranges in the suburbs. The opinion noted that Chicago could not infringe Second Amendment rights on the grounds that they could be exercised elsewhere, any more than it could infringe the right to freedom of speech on the grounds that citizens could speak elsewhere.

In Moore v. Madigan, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit issued a ruling in December 2012 that required the Illinois Legislature to modify existing State law to adopt a concealed carry law to allow the denizens of Illinois the right to bear arms outside of the home. In February 2013, the entire Court of Appeals decided to let stand the December 2012 decision of a three-judge panel. Following a final 30-day extension, Illinois was required by the court to draft a concealed carry law by July 9, 2013. In the end, the legislature overrode a veto of the governor and approved Illinois concealed carry to begin January 2014, at the latest.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald_v._City_of_Chicago

[Anti Globalist]

Good.

[RonZeplin]

Ruth Bader Ginsburg nails it in her majority opinion

https://cms.qz.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/RBG.jpeg?quality=75&strip=all&w=600

[Origanalist]

Excellent. The headline didn't include the word 'challenge', so good news when I was ready for bad.

[Brian4Liberty]

This bodes well for any challenge to Marco Rubio’s bill that allows states to violate the 1st Amendment.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?531300-Senate-Forbids-Israel-Boycott-Is-It-Constitutional

[specsaregood]

Excellent. The headline didn't include the word 'challenge', so good news when I was ready for bad.

Are we celebrating the federal govt overruling states laws then? Just wanting it to be clear. So much for nullification.

[Swordsmyth]

Are we celebrating the federal govt overruling states laws then? Just wanting it to be clear. So much for nullification.
Nullification is only legitimate when it protects the rights of the citizens or the states, this was a case of the state violating the rights of citizens so it is a good thing that they lost.

[Origanalist]

Are we celebrating the federal govt overruling states laws then? Just wanting it to be clear. So much for nullification.

Like always, you have a good point. This probably should be handled at the state level and it's a damn shame people tolerate this. That's what I get for posting on smoke breaks, just a quick reaction and then back to work.

[Brian4Liberty]

Are we celebrating the federal govt overruling states laws then? Just wanting it to be clear. So much for nullification.

What about the rest of the Bill of Rights? Null and void if the states want to eliminate them?

[Grandmastersexsay]

Are we celebrating the federal govt overruling states laws then? Just wanting it to be clear. So much for nullification.

The states did all agree that "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law..."

What does that mean? State law? Certainly not. That would make this section vacuous and meaningless. What would be the point of a state saying, we are not allowed to do something unless we say it's ok?

How about constitutional law then or should it be natural law? Should natural law use the bill of rights as it's framework? It seems rather obvious that it should.

I'd argue the states did authorize the fed to overrule any laws that violate the constitution or any amendment. It is no longer about states rights then. They already willingly gave up that right. All for the better too.

I'm not seeing the connection with nulification here from my perspective. Unless it is about abortion? Please tell me it's not about abortion.

[Gumba of Liberty]

The states did all agree that "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law..."

If due process means a (18th century common law) jury trial and the common man could actually understand this, we would never need to write another law. Think about that.

[Stratovarious]

The Bill of Rights is not a gift from the Federal Government, at least that's my understanding ,
the Federal Government and the States are required to uphold it.

Neither the States Nor the Federal Govt are allowed to ignore it, they both do though.


''All laws repugnant to the constitution are null and void'' -Marbury Madison 1803

[Grandmastersexsay]

If due process means a (18th century common law) jury trial and the common man could actually understand this, we would never need to write another law. Think about that.

Would you rather go to trial for misgendering in California under 18th century common law or under constitutional law?

[unknown]

Excessive fines?

How does this stop seizure of cash/assets when theres no conviction?

Or this shit:

Astonishingly awful Supreme Court decision lets the government seize all your assets before trial (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2014/02/27/astonishingly-awful-supreme-court-decision-lets-the-government-seize-all-your-assets-before-trial/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.4418671f6ba2).

[Warlord]

1098295358361350144
https://twitter.com/RandPaul/status/1098295358361350144

[shakey1]

Nullification is only legitimate when it protects the rights of the citizens or the states, this was a case of the state violating the rights of citizens so it is a good thing that they lost.

Yes, I would like to think that this is the case.

[RonZeplin]

Half-A-Cheer For Supremes' Civil Asset Forfeiture Ruling (http://www.ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/featured-articles/2019/february/21/half-a-cheer-for-supremes-civil-asset-forfeiture-ruling/)

Written by Daniel McAdams (http://www.ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/featured-articles/?author=Daniel+McAdams)
Thursday February 21, 2019

Yesterday's Supreme Court ruling on civil asset forfeiture - that states are bound by the Eighth Amendment - may be a step in the right direction, but it's only a baby step. Police are still free to steal from individuals not even accused of a crime, let alone convicted of a crime. They are just now told to not steal too much. The real issue that needs to be addressed is that the government should not be able to steal from the people. It's that simple. A break down of the ruling and what it means in today's Liberty Report:


https://youtu.be/IfZaDWLunlg

http://www.ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/featured-articles/2019/february/21/half-a-cheer-for-supremes-civil-asset-forfeiture-ruling/

[Occam's Banana]

Supreme Court Delivers Unanimous Victory for Asset Forfeiture Challenge

SCOTUS = Supreme Court Stopped Clock of the United States

[Grandmastersexsay]

Half-A-Cheer For Supremes' Civil Asset Forfeiture Ruling (http://www.ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/featured-articles/2019/february/21/half-a-cheer-for-supremes-civil-asset-forfeiture-ruling/)

Written by Daniel McAdams (http://www.ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/featured-articles/?author=Daniel+McAdams)
Thursday February 21, 2019

Yesterday's Supreme Court ruling on civil asset forfeiture - that states are bound by the Eighth Amendment - may be a step in the right direction, but it's only a baby step. Police are still free to steal from individuals not even accused of a crime, let alone convicted of a crime. They are just now told to not steal too much. The real issue that needs to be addressed is that the government should not be able to steal from the people. It's that simple. A break down of the ruling and what it means in today's Liberty Report:


https://youtu.be/IfZaDWLunlg

http://www.ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/featured-articles/2019/february/21/half-a-cheer-for-supremes-civil-asset-forfeiture-ruling/

Disagree. This will apply to everyone. The states will no longer be able to deprive anyone of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.

With this, I wonder if we'll see anything big get shaken up. Take alimony for example. States haven't been bound by due process. They can just say half of what you own now belongs to her and there was no recourse. Could we have a supreme court case that challenges that? Could a person be forced to prove how much wealth they brought to a marriage before simply be given half of everything?

[unknown]

Please help me to understand.

The federal government gets its power to exist from the states.

However, so long as a state chooses to stay within the "union", a state cannot pass a law which violates the Constitution (ban firearms for example).

Correct?

[Swordsmyth]

Please help me to understand.

The federal government gets its power to exist from the states.

However, so long as a state chooses to stay within the "union", a state cannot pass a law which violates the Constitution (ban firearms for example).

Correct?
Correct.