United States v. Ursery

United States v. Ursery
Supreme Court of the United States
Decided June 24, 1996
Full case name	United States v. Ursery
Citations	518 U.S. 267 ( more )
Holding
In rem civil forfeitures are not "punishment" for purposes of the Double Jeopardy Clause.
Court membership
Chief Justice William Rehnquist Associate Justices John P. Stevens  · Sandra Day O'Connor Antonin Scalia  · Anthony Kennedy David Souter  · Clarence Thomas Ruth Bader Ginsburg  · Stephen Breyer
Case opinions
Majority	Rehnquist
Concurrence	Kennedy
Concurrence	Scalia (in judgment), joined by Thomas
Concur/dissent	Stevens (in judgment)
Laws applied
Double Jeopardy Clause

United States v. Ursery, 518 U.S. 267(1996), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that in rem civil forfeitures are not "punishment" for purposes of the Double Jeopardy Clause. ^{[1] [2]}

Background

In No. 95-345, the government instituted civil forfeiture proceedings under 21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(7) against Ursery's house, alleging that it had been used to facilitate illegal drug transactions. Shortly before Ursery settled that claim, he was indicted, and was later convicted, of manufacturing marijuana in violation of. ^[1]

In No. 95-346, the government filed a civil in rem complaint against various property seized from, or titled to, Arlt and Wren or Arlt's corporation, alleging that each item was subject to forfeiture under 18 U.S.C. § 981(a)(I)(A) because it was involved in money laundering, and to forfeiture under 21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(6) as the proceeds of a felonious drug transaction. Litigation of the forfeiture action was deferred while Arlt and Wren were prosecuted on drug and money laundering charges. After their convictions, the federal District Court granted the Government's motion for summary judgment in the forfeiture proceeding. ^[1]

The Courts of Appeals reversed Ursery's conviction and the forfeiture judgment against Arlt and Wren, holding that the Double Jeopardy Clause prohibits the government from both punishing a defendant for a criminal offense and forfeiting his property for that same offense in a separate civil proceeding. The courts reasoned in part that United States v. Halper and Austin v. United States meant that, as a categorical matter, civil forfeitures always constitute "punishment" for double jeopardy purposes. ^[1]

The Supreme Court consolidated the cases. ^[1]

Opinion of the court

The Supreme Court issued an opinion on June 24, 1996. ^[1]

References

1. United States v. Ursery, 518 U.S. 267 (1996).
2. Lieberman, Jethro K. (1999). "Punishment, Criminal and Civil". A Practical Companion to the Constitution. p. 401.

External links

• Text of United States v. Ursery, 518 U.S. 267(1996) is available from: Cornell Findlaw Justia

This article incorporates written opinion of a United States federal court. As a work of the U.S. federal government, the text is in the public domain .