[archon]

I'm worried that because this is a case in which the defendant actually did deal drugs, the court will rule in favor of the civil forfeiture laws and the SC case will then be used as a precedent to justify broader use of civil forfeiture. But IANAL, so maybe the danger isn't as big as I fear.

[Navarr]

Considering the lower courts all agreed that the forfeiture was excessive, I'm not inclined to worry too much about that.

It appears to be going to the supreme court b/c the Indiana Supreme Court said that the amendment regarding excessive fines doesn't apply to the states.

So the real question being asked to the SC in this case is "Must states abide by the 8th amendment?"

Since they must 1st, 2nd, and others - I don't see why they would not be required to do so.

[dhd415]

It's because of selective incorporation. (https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/incorporation_doctrine). For example, the Second Amendment wasn't incorporated against the states until 2010 in McDonald v. City of Chicago.

[cabaalis]

I can't for the life of me understand why the 10th amendment does not have a more prominent place in the American political system than it does. It is because government would be hamstrung if they respected it? It would seem to the layman that is the entire reason it exists!

[CobrastanJorji]

Technically you're right. The 10th amendment has been largely neutered by selective incorporation, a very broad reading of the commerce clause, and other decisions.

That said, the world in which the 10th amendment is very strong and the fourteenth is weak is much worse for civil rights. Suddenly the states can declare official support for Christianity, ban dissenting speech, shut down newspapers they dislike, search you or even imprison you without a warrant, or quarter troops in your house.

[coldseattle]

"Quartering Troops" sounds archaic, but every now and then lawmakers propose it, like forcing private airlines to provide discounted or free arrangements for servicemen traveling. (As opposed to negotiating rates with them, or soliciting competitive bids). These proposals usually don't get very far, but it shows you that the Government still thinks it's OK to _force_ a citizen or private business to give free services or accommodations to soldiers.

(For example, see https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/08/congressman-bruce-... and https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/08/delta-troops-afgha... The Government should reimburse him, and try to negotiate the best rates from the Airlines. I'd be all for the Airlines offering a discount, but they shouldn't be forced to.)

[noobermin]

Disregarding what the law says, the material reality is that American society today largely respects and thinks highly of the US military, and is not as skeptical of federal government's standing armies.

[itronitron]

aren't we already quartering troops with the proportion of taxes that support the DoD?

[maehwasu]

At the margin, people would begin moving to different states.

The current system has some pros (which you enumerate), but also some massive cons in the form of high exit costs, since you're exiting the entire federal apparatus rather than the government of a single state.

[r00fus]

> At the margin, people would begin moving to different states.

"They can simply move away" is a fantasy solution. 99% people would/could not move until/unless it became a crisis situation.

Sure, you could move, but what about your infirm parents? The costs are already high for between-states moves.

[bnolsen]

It cuts both ways. One central government squishing civil rights or 50 states each having to squish civil rights? I do tend to agree to the supremacy of the bill of rights which is supposed to be just a restatement of natural rights and is a hands off to government in general.

[ricree]

Because the 10th provides little that is particularly concrete, and because the prevailing interpretation of other clauses has been fairly broad. That is to say, by and large the federal government has been acting withing the powers granted by the constitution, but at the moment those powers are held to be quite broad. Interstate commerce clause, in particular, means that the government can do quite a bit to regulate, so long as it is in some manner related to interstate trade. I don't personally agree with these interpretations, but they are the prevailing ones.

Likewise, incorporation doctrine is derived from the constitution. So anything that is considered barred by incorporation is therefore "prohibited by it[the constitution] to the States".

It has, in the past, been called "a truism" by the courts, and that's not a totally unreasonable read. Still, there issue has come up in court from time to time, and the wikipedia page ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenth_Amendment_to_the_United_... ) lists some examples.

[jdmichal]

Interstate commerce has been interpreted very broadly... So broadly that consuming things you grew yourself is under subject of interstate commerce.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich

[ricree]

Even before that, there was a case where the federal government had limited the amount of wheat a farm could grow (to control prices), and came after a farmer who exceeded those limits for the sake of feeding his own livestock. This is, to the best of my knowledge, the earliest supreme court case where purely personal use counted as "interstate commerce".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn

[gamblor956]

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Generally, after ratification the 10th Amendment was treated as a truism: essentially a useless amendment that simply confirmed the federal system of government. The words of the man who drafted the amendment, and who opposed it's inclusion:

I find, from looking into the amendments proposed by the State conventions, that several are particularly anxious that it should be declared in the Constitution, that the powers not therein delegated should be reserved to the several States. Perhaps words which may define this more precisely than the whole of the instrument now does, may be considered as superfluous. I admit they may be deemed unnecessary: but there can be no harm in making such a declaration, if gentlemen will allow that the fact is as stated. I am sure I understand it so, and do therefore propose it.

For much of the 20th Century, the justification for most federal laws infringing on state activity has been the Commerce Clause, which was extremely broadly written.

Most recently, the 10th Amendment has been interpreted to mean the federal government cannot force the states to enforce federal laws (see, e.g., Printz and the recently decided Murphy).

[syshum]

>the Commerce Clause, which was extremely broadly written.

Not really, however in Wickard the Supreme Court simply ignored the entire words written, any context, and any rational thought processes around the words written to come up with a massive expansion of federal power that basic renders the enumeration clause pointless, and granting the federal government almost unlimited authority over everything

>>>>[The Congress shall have Power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

Seems narrow and precise to me, how 9 supposedly intelligent people came away reading in to the passage "Yes Congress can regulate how much wheat a man grows on his own farm for his own consumption" defy's all logic and reason

[AnimalMuppet]

Because they didn't decide based on the Constitution, or on the facts of the case. They decided based on what would be convenient for the war effort in World War II.

As Francis Schaeffer said, "If there are no absolutes by which to judge society, then society is absolute." If your ultimate value is "whatever is good for society" or "the nation", there is nothing you cannot trample on in support of that value - even the Constitution.

[mijoharas]

Sorry, could you explain what the 10th amendment is? (The Wikipedia page has some assumed knowledge that I do not have as I'm not American.)

[jdmichal]

The basic reading would be, that unless the Constitution defines a power of the federal government, that power resides with the states and citizens. As mentioned in the Wikipedia article, its addition was basically CYA, as it was and is true regardless of its enshrining within the Constitution. As such, its existence does not really mean anything beyond what the Constitution already meant. It just provides a handy shortcut to say, "the federal government should not have had the power to enforce this on the states."

This is actually a rather important principle, and most people don't realize how many federal laws that work at the state level use funding carrots rather than criminal-punishment sticks for enforcement. For instance, the penalty for not following the unpopular and eventually dismantled "No Child Left Behind Act" was that your state would not receive federal education funding.

> The Act required states to develop assessments in basic skills. To receive federal school funding, states had to give these assessments to all students at select grade levels.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Child_Left_Behind_Act

[rocqua]

> federal laws ... use funding carrots rather than criminal-punishment sticks

There are limits to this, some of which are set out in South Dakota v. Dole, 483 U.S. 203 (1987). These limits (quoting wikipedia) are:

* The spending must promote "the general welfare."

* The condition must be unambiguous.

* The condition should relate "to the federal interest in particular national projects or programs."

* The condition imposed on the states must not, in itself, be unconstitutional.

* The condition must not be coercive.

Especially the last condition is relevant. It means the withdrawal of funding cannot be so harsh as to be clearly funding. I believe the actual wording used is that the threat of withdrawal cannot be a 'gun to the head' of the states.

[SlowRobotAhead]

It means that anything not expressly prohibited in the constitution is up to the states to decide.

What most people don't get (even in the USA) is that the constitution doesn't grant powers to people. It only restricts the government from acting on the people. People were born with the right to speak freely and defend themselves as they see fit - the government can't change that for example.

So the 10th says if it isn't mentioned it is a power that belongs to the people or the states. For example, weed isn't mentioned in the constitution so technically it's a 10th issue for states to decide - HOWEVER - this is thing called the commerce clause...

Commerce clause means that if something moves from state to state, that sure does seem like a Federal matter. So it gets complicated. But... In the end, some states have legalized in the state in part referring to 10A, it's their right to do - but if you are in a "weed state" and light up at a DEA office - expect to be arrested and charged with a federal crime.

* The thing about commerce clause is that almost everything can move from state to state. So that's a little bit of an annoying topic depending on the issue and which side you're on. For example, I can manufacture a gun in my state that isn't legal in another state, commerce clause has been tried to limit 2A.

[ricree]

>Commerce clause means that if something moves from state to state, that sure does seem like a Federal matter

To clarify (as you no doubt know, but other readers might not), this has been taken by courts to mean that any type of good that is traded between states is fair game for federal involvement, even if the actual product in question never has and never will travel outside of the state, or be bought or sold whatsoever.

[forapurpose]

On what is this analysis based? No offense to the parent, but I've learned that analyses of law by non-attorneys, while they can be valuable in regard to principles, are about as accurate as an attorney's analysis of a software project.

[ricree]

The full text reads:

>The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

What, exactly, this means has been a matter of ongoing debate for much of the amendment's existence. Some of the more fervent states' rights advocates have considered it a hard check on the power of the federal government, while at other times it has been considered little more than a truism.

My own personal read on it is that it defines the nature of state and federal lawmaking power, from the perspective of the constitution. Federal law is strict. The constitution allows it certain specific powers and subjects it is allowed to govern, and it must stay within those. State laws, from a federal perspective, are permissive. The constitution bars certain powers from the states, but anything not banned they are allowed to regulate.

In practice, this means less than it might, because the constitution's powers allow the federal government a lot of room to regulate and govern. At the state level, incorporation doctrine also limits their powers a fair bit.

In terms of judicial history, the 10th is one of the less significant parts of the Bill of Rights, becoming an issue in court far less than, say, the First Amendment (freedom of speech/press/religion) or Fourth (limits to search and seizure/ warrant requirements). On the other hand, it has come up more often than the Third (forced quartering of troops during times of peace).

[greggarious]

>On the other hand, it has come up more often than the Third (forced quartering of troops during times of peace)

I'm surprised no one has made a 3rd amendment argument against so called "wiretap rooms" in our nation's ISPs

https://theintercept.com/2018/06/25/att-internet-nsa-spy-hub...

[Finnucane]

The Supremacy clause of the constitution means that state law can’t be contrary to the constitution. So if the 8th amendment applies in this case, the state law is overruled.

[forapurpose]

The article says it's the due process clause (the 14th Amendment) which extends Constitutional law to the states.

[Navarr]

Thanks for this link! I'm learning a lot that I never really even knew to know about.

It's a mess. It's probably the best mess they could put together - but it's still a mess.

[downandout]

You're correct that this isn't really the type of case that will set a precedent for the most troublesome applications of civil forfeiture. I wish cases like these [1] would reach the Supreme Court. In one of those cases, a man that had just won $50,000 in cash from a casino had it seized, even though he wasn't cited for a traffic offense or charged with any crime. It would be nice if legislators simply outlawed the practice, but the political will doesn't exist. A Supreme Court case where property was seized without any charges is likely the only way we will see any progress on civil forfeiture.

[1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/instituteforjustice/2014/03/12/...

[mmt]

> A Supreme Court case where property was seized without any charges is likely the only way we will see any progress on civil forfeiture.

I posit it's a better way (assuming SCOTUS makes decides an actual Constitutional question) than legislation, since it precludes legislators merely reinstating the practice later.

[s73v3r_]

Political will is getting there. A couple of states have banned the practice, and more are removing the incentive that police departments have to do it(that the funds go to the police).

[UncleEntity]

If they just drop the case or the person wins in the lower courts and gets their money back then it will never get to the Supreme Court, they have to fight to keep the money (which they don't if it's obvious they'll lose) in order for it to reach the higher levels.

I've heard previously that they go so far as saying the charges are against the property itself so the owner has no standing to sue the government which keeps them from ever determining the constitutionality of civil forfeiture.

[downandout]

I've heard previously that they go so far as saying the charges are against the property itself so the owner has no standing to sue the government which keeps them from ever determining the constitutionality of civil forfeiture.

This is generally how the cases are titled - U.S.A vs $200,000 US currency, for example. Here's a list of recent federal court cases where the defendant is "currency" [1]. You can also view publicly posted forfeiture notices, which give an indication of the magnitude of this problem, here [2]. But the owner can still attempt to get it back, it's just usually at a very high legal cost.

[1] https://prnt.sc/jzcl8c

[2] https://www.forfeiture.gov

[koboll]

It would be a wild dereliction of the duty of SCOTUS to let the facts of a particular case influence their judgement on a broader legal question. Many cases get sent back to lower courts without resolving a broader legal question because the facts of a particular case weren't quite perfectly aligned to make it an appropriate vehicle to resolve a broad question. The political gerrymandering cases decided thus far this term are a good example.

[jdpedrie]

> The political gerrymandering cases decided thus far this term are a good example.

Masterpiece Cake Shop was as well. The court ruled in his favor, but was able to wiggle out of resolving the constitutional questions because of explicit bias on the part of the CO Civil Rights Commission.

[AnimalMuppet]

This is getting off topic, but: I read Masterpiece as saying that, if you're going to apply the rules against a Christian baker, you have to apply the same rules against a gay baker (CO Civil Rights ignored complaints from Christians against gay bakers who wouldn't put some Christian message on their cake).

I think this is the right approach. A Christian could go to a gay baker, asking for a cake that quoted a Bible verse that said that homosexuality is a sin. A gay rights convention could ask a Christian baker for a cake that said "Christianity is bigotry". The rules for one have to be the rules for the other.

My preferred answer: Put a gay baker and a Christian baker in a room. Tell them to come up with the rules. The rules will apply to both of them. Give them two hours. You'll get a reasonable proposal. Make that the rules.

[koboll]

>My preferred answer: Put a gay baker and a Christian baker in a room. Tell them to come up with the rules. The rules will apply to both of them. Give them two hours. You'll get a reasonable proposal.

I disagree. A racist white shopkeeper and a black shopkeeper set to the same task in the 1960s would not come up with the Civil Rights Act; they would come up with something that segregated people further. I think the same would occur here.

[Analemma_]

Whatever its other faults, SCOTUS is usually pretty good about not letting crummy defendants blind them to setting good precedent. For example, Miranda warnings came about when they threw out the conviction of a man who had almost certainly kidnapped and raped a teenager.

[shawn]

This has always fascinated me. It's very strange to think about the fact that society works this way, and that it has to.

[sjwright]

It doesn't seem strange at all. It's not the Supreme Court's fault that the defendant or plaintiff in any particular case are scummy or sympathetic, nobodies or famous, weak or powerful. They are aware that their decisions will affect many more people.

They need to create law which caters for the for the wrongly accused as much as it does the rightly accused.

[another-one-off]

Everything you said is actually pretty strange. I'm on board with it, but the default what-humans-try-on-the-first-pass approach is to consider each case on its own merits including the people involved (and runs smack-bang into the various -isms, eg, racism). The idea that a scummy and a sympathetic defendant will get the same treatment is genuinely weird and not at all an instinctive approach to justice. This system is under constant pressure to revert back to more primitive approaches, where 'good people' get good outcomes and 'bad people' get bad outcomes. It just happens that, in practice, what we have now is better than that.

[sjwright]

> Everything you said is actually pretty strange. ... The idea that a scummy and a sympathetic defendant will get the same treatment is genuinely weird and not at all an instinctive approach to justice.

This is like a topsy-turvy world. The idea that a scummy or sympathetic defendant would not get the same treatment is genuinely weird and not at all an instinctive approach to justice.

Equal treatment under the law is justice. The only thing that should distinguish a scummy or sympathetic defendant are the __facts__ in their respective cases. Not the law.

By the time a case reaches the Supreme Court, it is never really about the defendant—the facts of a case are almost never in dispute—the question is usually a very narrow disagreement over a particular matter of law.

[jessaustin]

Charitably, this viewpoint misses a great deal of history. Less charitably, it also misses a great deal of what's actually going on right here right now. Poor defendants plea out. Rich defendants don't get charged, because prosecutors know they can afford to go to trial.

Of course I'm not saying that poor people are "scummy", whatever that means. No one in this thread has to say it, because the courts say it every day.

[code_duck]

It's the same thing that puzzles some people about the ACLU.

[skissane]

Miranda v. Arizona was decided over 50 years ago. How relevant is the behavior of SCOTUS 50 years ago to predicting their present-day behavior? The membership is completely different, and there have been countless other changes in law and American society and culture over that period. (I'm not necessarily disagreeing with your point, which may well be right, but your example might not be the best example to demonstrate it.)

(And especially considering that the present-day SCOTUS has been accused of repeatedly eroding Miranda v. Arizona, see especially Berghuis v. Thompkins in 2010.)

[394549]

> Miranda v. Arizona was decided over 50 years ago. How relevant is the behavior of SCOTUS 50 years ago to predicting their present-day behavior? The membership is completely different, and there have been countless other changes in law and American society and culture over that period.

Because the Supreme Court is an institution with an institutional culture. Furthermore, its members obsessively study it's past decisions and their reasoning, so I'd expect its culture to have quite a bit of inertia.

[macintux]

There are some disturbing indications that the more conservative current members feel less constrained by traditions and precedent. I don’t have the quotes handy but they were pretty explicit.

[8note]

that inherently seems off; conservatives are defined by trying to follow traditions and precedent. Not changing is their thing

[macintux]

I assume it’s related to Originalism: it’s time to return to first principles.

[axaxs]

I was thinking the same thing. There are tons of examples of forfeiture happening because of 'assumed illegality', especially when it comes to having money on you - that could have been a better way for the SC to strike it down harshly. I still don't agree with it in this case, but I don't think it helps the case that he did sell Heroin, which is a sore subject these days.

[dmitrygr]

You should read a little bit more about this case. The actual question the Supreme Court is deciding here is whether the 8th amendment applies to rulings issued by state courts. Something that should be seemingly obvious but it's actually not entirely settled in existing case law.

[amyjess]

IANAL either, but the Supreme Court generally prefers to set very narrow precedents.

It's possible they'll rule that civil forfeiture was acceptable in this one specific case, and they'll go out of their way to make it clear that their ruling only applies to this specific case.

[menacingly]

In my mind, this is more a risk with smaller courts and SCOTUS exists on a higher plane. In my mind.