Frozen assets for legal fees
Luis v. United States
In brief
The Court said the government could not freeze Luis’s untainted assets needed to hire a lawyer and sent her case back to the Eleventh Circuit.
- Where it stands
- Decided
Decided 5-3 · March 30, 2016 · Opinion by Justice Breyer
- What it’s about
- The Supreme Court ruled that before trial, the government cannot freeze a defendant’s lawful assets unrelated to the alleged crime when she needs them to hire a lawyer of her choice.
- Who it affects
- The ruling bars the government from freezing a defendant’s legitimate, untainted assets needed to hire a lawyer of choice before trial.
Summary: written with AI from the case record.
What it's about
It wiped out the Eleventh Circuit’s ruling (vacated it) and sent the case back to that court (remanded it).
The dispute concerned money not tied to the alleged crime that the government sought to restrain before trial.
Question presented
Does the pretrial restraint of assets that are not directly related to the crime at issue and are needed to retain counsel of choice violate the defendant’s Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights?
What the Court decided
Holding
The judgment is vacated, and the case is remanded. 564 Fed. Appx. 493, vacated and remanded. JUSTICE BREYER, joined by THE CHIEF JUSTICE, JUSTICE GINSBURG, and JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR, concluded that the pretrial restraint of legitimate, untainted assets needed to retain counsel of choice violates the Sixth Amendment. The nature and importance of the constitutional right taken together with the nature of the assets lead to this conclusion.
- Result
- Vacated
The Court's reasoning
Justice Breyer and three other justices said the importance of choosing a lawyer, together with the fact that the assets were legitimate and unrelated to the alleged crime, meant the government could not freeze them before trial. Justice Thomas agreed with the result for different reasons, relying on the Sixth Amendment’s text and history.
The vote
- Joined the judgment
- Concurred in a separate opinion
- Dissented
- Wrote an opinion
- Concurring · 1agreed with the result, wrote separately
From the opinions
“At that time, “the presumption of innocence still applies,” and the Government’s interest in the assets is wholly contingent on future judgments of conviction and forfeiture.”
What's next
The case returns to the Eleventh Circuit for further proceedings under the Supreme Court’s ruling.
Documents
Opinions
Docket activity
New analysis added
AI analysis generated: Case Briefing
New analysis added
AI analysis generated: Impact Analysis
AI analysis generated: Opinion Summary
Show 4 moreShow fewer
AI analysis generated: Decision Record
Case data updated: summary, question_presented, generation_metadata
Case data updated: question_presented, extraction_metadata
Opinion added: Luis
Sources
Primary materials plus reporting. Best-effort analysis: this explainer relies on a mix of primary materials and trusted secondary sources. Official filings and opinions remain authoritative.