United States v. Ursery
United States v. Ursery is a significant Supreme Court case addressing the issue of civil asset forfeiture in the context of drug manufacturing and money laundering. Guy Ursery, the defendant, faced the forfeiture of his property, including his house, following his conviction for drug-related offenses. He argued that the forfeiture constituted punishment and thus violated the Double Jeopardy Clause, as he believed he had already been punished criminally. A lower court initially sided with him, referencing the precedent set in United States v. Halper, which recognized that civil penalties could be as punitive as criminal penalties.
However, the Supreme Court ultimately ruled by an eight to one margin that the civil forfeiture imposed on Ursery did not count as punishment in this context and therefore did not violate double jeopardy protections. This ruling upheld the federal government's authority to impose civil forfeitures without being classified as punitive measures for the purposes of double jeopardy. The case highlights the complex interplay between civil and criminal law in the realm of asset forfeiture and sets a crucial precedent regarding the limits of punitive measures in federal cases related to drug offenses.
United States v. Ursery
Date: June 24, 1996
Citation: 116 S. Ct. 2135
Issue: Double jeopardy
Significance: The Supreme Court determined that civil forfeitures in drug manufacturing and money laundering cases do not cause double jeopardy.
Congress passed laws requiring the forfeiture of property in drug manufacturing and money laundering cases. The defendant, Guy Ursery, was required to forfeit his property, including his house, in a drug manufacturing case. After he was convicted, he sought to have his conviction overturned on grounds that he had already been punished criminally by the forfeiture. He prevailed in a lower court that used United States v. Halper (1989) to rule that civil penalties could be as punitive as criminal penalties. The Supreme Court, by a vote of eight to one, upheld the federal government’s imposition of civil forfeiture of property in drug manufacturing and money laundering cases. Without overturning Halper or holding that civil penalties could not be as punitive as criminal penalties, the Court held they were not punishment in this case and therefore could not constitute double jeopardy.
