Civil-Asset Forfeiture Should Be an Easy Place to Start on Criminal-Justice Reform

Why has civil-asset forfeiture, which flies in the face of American expectations of due process, been allowed to persist in its current form?

Share this story

1968: The first 9-1-1 call is placed in the United States.

rtolympic/Getty Images

Since the death of George Floyd during his arrest by Minneapolis police officers in late May, Americans of all colors, creeds, and political predilections have recognized the need for improvements to the U.S. criminal-justice system. Unfortunately, any hopes of a comprehensive reform bill being passed this congressional term were dashed when Senate Democrats blocked Tim Scott’s (R., S.C.) JUSTICE Act in June. However, Representative Tim Walberg’s (R., Mich.) Fifth Amendment Integrity Restoration (FAIR) Act is an opportunity for Congress to nevertheless come together for bipartisan and meaningful change.

Law enforcement can currently seize and claim property through criminal forfeiture, administrative forfeiture, or civil forfeiture. Criminal forfeiture brings charges against the property of a defendant in tandem with charges against that defendant. A jury must rule the property forfeitable before the government can claim it as its own. Criminal forfeiture is left untouched by the FAIR Act. Administrative forfeiture, according to the Department of Justice, “permits the federal seizing agency to forfeit the property without judicial involvement” and applies to “merchandise the importation of which is prohibited; a conveyance used to import, transport, or store a controlled substance; a monetary instrument; or other property that does not exceed $500,000 in value.” Walberg’s legislation tinkers with administrative forfeiture, but only marginally.

Isaac Schorr

About the Author

Isaac Schorr

Isaac Schorr is an editor at Mediaite and a 2023–2024 Robert Novak Journalism Fellow at the Fund for American Studies.

Comments

Advertisement

Advertisement