SCOTUS Has a Chance to Rein in Civil Forfeiture

In Honeycutt v. United States (2017), the Supreme Court took an important step toward limiting the abuse of civil forfeiture, ruling that only those who have personally profited from criminal activity can be liable in civil forfeiture proceedings. But now the Department of Justice argues that the Supreme Court left open a loophole in Honeycutt: that a co-conspirator acting as a “passthrough” to move money may be held liable for all the money that she handled. The Eleventh Circuit has accepted this argument.

The Cato Institute filed an amicus brief in the case arguing 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.

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, the authors conclude.

You can read the piece here. If you would like to speak with Berry, please contact me to set up an interview.