Culley v. Marshall
In brief
A timely hearing on the forfeiture itself is required, but a separate early hearing over temporary possession of seized personal property is not.
- Where it stands
- Decided
Decided 6-3 · May 9, 2024 · Opinion by Justice Kavanaugh
- 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.
- Who it affects
- People whose cars or other personal property are seized will not have a constitutional right to a separate preliminary hearing solely to seek its return during the case.
Summary: written with AI from the case record.
What it's about
The decision defines how the Due Process Clause, the constitutional guarantee of fair procedures, applies when governments seize personal property through civil forfeiture.
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?
What the Court decided
The vote
- Joined the judgment
- Concurred in a separate opinion
- Dissented
- Wrote an opinion
- Concurring · 1agreed with the result, wrote separately
- Gorsuchwrote separately
From the opinions
“The Due Process Clause requires a timely forfeiture hearing but does not require a separate preliminary hearing.”
What's next
Lower courts must apply this rule in civil forfeiture disputes involving personal property. State and local agencies must provide timely forfeiture hearings, while people challenging seizures can pursue the forfeiture case itself.
Why it matters
Governments must still provide a timely hearing on whether they may permanently keep the property.
Documents
Docket activity
New analysis added
AI analysis generated: Impact Analysis
AI analysis generated: Opinion Summary
New analysis added
AI analysis generated: Case Briefing
Show 4 moreShow fewer
Opinion added: Culley
Opinion added: opinion
Brief added: Petition
Brief added: Questions Presented
More questions
- What did the Supreme Court rule in Culley v. Marshall?
- The Court said the Constitution requires a timely forfeiture hearing. It does not require a separate preliminary hearing on temporary possession of seized property.
- Who is affected by Culley v. Marshall?
- People whose cars or other personal property are seized in civil forfeiture cases are affected. So are state and local law-enforcement agencies handling those cases.
- What happens next after Culley v. Marshall?
- Lower courts will follow the Court's rule in future cases. Agencies must ensure timely forfeiture hearings, without a constitutionally required separate preliminary hearing.
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.