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
Timing
Decided May 9, 2024
The Court released its decision 192 days after oral argument on October 30, 2023. The median for cases argued in October is 138 days.
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