During its 2023-2024 Term, the U.S. Supreme Court allowed criminal penalties for people who are homeless; blocked the ATF’s regulation of bump stocks; ended Chevron deference, a landmark doctrine of administrative review; and decided that U.S. presidents are immune from criminal prosecution for core constitutional acts taken during their tenure in office. Criminal defense lawyers will talk about these cases for years to come.

Civil forfeiture is a nationwide problem, and a first-of-its-kind survey by the Institute for Justice finds those who experience it call it frustrating, corrupt and unfair. Their stories highlight the human toll of policing for profit. IJ’s new survey focuses on victims of one large-scale forfeiture program, but the challenges they faced are common to forfeiture programs across the country. Study co-author Jennifer McDonald and senior attorney Dan Alban, both of IJ, will present findings from the survey and from IJ’s landmark forfeiture report, and discuss civil forfeiture more broadly.

We, the undersigned organizations, write in opposition to S. 686, the “Restricting the Emergence of Security Threats that Risk Information and Communications Technology Act,” or the “RESTRICT Act.” The RESTRICT Act aims at information and communications (ICTs) technologies like TikTok that are considered a threat to the United States. 

Part I: The Basics

According to the government, the goal of forfeiture is to take the profit out of crime. The government seeks to take private assets – including cash and real property – that it claims constitute the proceeds of criminal activity. Steven L. Kessler discusses some of the basics every attorney should know about forfeiture.

Coalition letter to members of the House and Senate Judiciary Committees regarding proposed reforms to federal forfeiture law.

Follow-up letter to the Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure Advisory Committee on Civil Rules regarding the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act of 2000.

Letter to the U.S. Courts Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure Advisory Committee on Civil Rules regarding the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act of 2000.

Nation's Criminal Defense Bar Disappointed in Announcement of Regressive DOJ Policy on Asset Forfeiture -- Washington, DC (July 19, 2017) -- NACDL was disappointed in today's announcement by the Department of Justice that it is returning to ill-advised forfeiture policies that it had recently abandoned after much public scrutiny.

Written statement of NACDL second vice president E.E. (Bo) Edwards to the Judicial Review Commission on Foreign Asset Control regarding the Foreign Narcotics Kingpin Designation Act (H.R. 3164, 1999).

NACDL successfully advocated for the passage of asset forfeiture reform legislation in Ohio. 

NACDL supported asset forfeiture reform efforts in North Dakota. 

President-elect Gerald B. Lefcourt, Asset Forfeiture Abuse Task Force co-chair E.E. (Bo) Edwards, Attorney David B. Smith, and Susan Davis' written statements to the House Judiciary Committee regarding Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act of 1997 (H.R. 1965).

Executive Director Norman Reimer's letter to the Ohio House Judiciary Committee regarding a proposal to eliminate the civil forfeiture process and rely only on criminal forfeiture and its requirements (HB 347, 2015).

on These Unconstitutional Judicial Punishments?

Courts issue forfeiture money judgments against defendants despite the absence of statutory authority or due process protections. Defense counsel must continue to raise constitutional challenges until the Supreme Court speaks on the issue.

Asset Forfeiture Abuse Task Force co-chair E.E. (Bo) Edwards's testimony to the House Judiciary Committee regarding the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act (H.R. 1916, 1995) and federal asset forfeiture programs.