No. 22-585October Term 2023Decided May 9, 2024
Culley v. Marshall
The Supreme Court held that in civil forfeiture cases involving personal property, such as a vehicle, the Due Process Clause requires a timely forfeiture hearing but does not mandate a separate preliminary hearing to determine if the police can keep the property while the case is pending.
Case status
- Current stage
- Decided
- Latest event
- Decision released May 9, 2024
- What it's about
The Supreme Court held that in civil forfeiture cases involving personal property, such as a vehicle, the Due Process Clause requires a timely forfeiture hearing but does not mandate a separate preliminary hearing to determine if the police can keep the property while the case is pending.
Question presented
What test must a district court apply when determining whether and when a post-deprivation hearing is required under the Due Process Clause?
- Case path
United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit / Decision released May 9, 2024
- Area
Decided Supreme Court case
Documents
Related cases
Grounding
- Grounding
- Primary-source trail available.
- Note
- Plain-English explainer. Official filings and opinions remain authoritative.
- Checked
- Mar 30, 2026
- Method
- Methodology