The State and Local Government class at the University of the District of Columbia School of Law had the opportunity to witness the oral arguments for the case Culley v. Marshall at the Supreme Court on October 30. The courtroom buzzed with intensity as Chief Justice Roberts and the eight associate justices engaged in a vigorous interrogation of the legal issues at hand.
The case, officially docketed as Culley v. Marshall, Attorney General of Alabama, originated from a decision below in 2022 WL 2663643. The Supreme Court granted certiorari on April 17, 2023, and the central question presented revolves around the Due Process Clause and its implications for state and local governments in the context of statutory judicial forfeiture proceedings.
The specific query before the Court is articulated as follows: “In determining whether the Due Process Clause requires a state or local government to provide a post-seizure probable cause hearing prior to a statutory judicial forfeiture proceeding and, if so, when such a hearing must take place, should district courts apply the ‘speedy trial’ test employed in United States v. $8,850, 461 U.S. 555 (1983) and Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (1972), as held by the Eleventh Circuit, or the three-part due process analysis set forth in Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976), as held by at least the Second, Fifth, Seventh, and Ninth Circuits.”
The argument, as witnessed by the UDC Law class, was characterized by a highly engaged bench. All nine justices actively participated in questioning, creating an atmosphere of intellectual rigor and legal scrutiny. The students had the privilege of observing firsthand the judicial process at the highest level, gaining insights into the dynamics of Supreme Court proceedings.
The crux of the case revolves around the constitutional interpretation of the Due Process Clause in the context of procedural safeguards for individuals facing potential forfeiture of property by state or local governments. The divergent approaches taken by various circuit courts, particularly the Eleventh Circuit’s reliance on the “speedy trial” test and the contrasting position held by the Second, Fifth, Seventh, and Ninth Circuits, underscore the complexity of the legal issues before the Supreme Court.
