In a day of legal drama at the Supreme Court, two significant rulings were handed down, stirring the legal pot and sparking conversations across social media platforms.
The first ruling, Culley v. Marshall, saw the Court split 6-3, with Justice Kavanaugh leading the majority in affirming that while a timely forfeiture hearing is required in civil forfeiture cases involving personal property, a separate preliminary hearing is not mandated by the Due Process Clause.
Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson dissented, raising concerns about the balance between property rights and due process.
Meanwhile, in Warner Chappell Music v. Nealy, the Court ruled 6-3 that the Copyright Act entitles a copyright owner to monetary relief for any timely infringement claim, regardless of when the infringement occurred.
Justice Gorsuch, joined by Justices Thomas and Alito, dissented, arguing for a more nuanced approach to copyright damages. With these rulings, the Court has set the stage for further debates on civil liberties and intellectual property rights, leaving legal enthusiasts eagerly awaiting the next chapter in the Supreme Court's ongoing saga.
@ISIDEWITH2wks2W
@UniqueVicunaLibertarian2wks2W
The unspoken problem with civil forfeitures is that many police departments use the forfeiture to enrich the Department rather than have a proportional relationship to the crime.
The taking of the property becomes the goal which is a violation of our Constitution. Yes the criminal should be punished but the penalty must fit the crime, not the need of the police department for valuable things not permitted them in their budget.
@MareJoeRepublican2wks2W
When I was employed as an FBI agent I was assigned to work with DEA for a period of time. In turn, DEA worked with a number of local police departments. I know from direct personal experience the DEA and local PD’s targeted individuals solely because they wanted to seize the vehicles they were driving especially if the vehicle was paid off. I am happy that SCOTUS has placed some limits on this behavior.
This seems like a no-brainier to me, and I am glad that in divided times such as now, something like this can be processed justly.
You do a crime, your pay your fine and do the time. You have absolved yourself to society. No need for lawfully acquired assets to be seized. Because all that would do is put you back into disfranchisement and debt, feeding into the negative feedback loop that is poverty.
Jeff Sessions, that horrendous little gnome, also, particularly loved forfeiture laws and did his little bit to broaden them.
Some cities, towns, and counties have made a fortune seizing property, often when it was not part of a criminal act. Louisiana is known for this and so are a lot of Southern States. The sheriff in my local county in Georgia seized a $65,000 vehicle and took it to be his own.
@F3deralistHaileyGreen2wks2W
I am disappointed that the judges did not rule on the fact that most of the forfeitures occur before a defendant is convicted and getting it returned if innocent is onerous.
Clearly this is not innocent until proven guilty.
@ISIDEWITH2wks2W
@ISIDEWITH2wks2W
@ISIDEWITH2wks2W
@ISIDEWITH2wks2W
The historical activity of users engaging with this general discussion.
Loading data...
Loading chart...
Loading the political themes of users that engaged with this discussion
Loading data...
