Timbs is a good reminder of how ridiculous the argument in favor of civil asset forfeiture really is. During oral arguments in November, Indiana’s solicitor general got boxed into a corner by Justice Stephen Breyer, who managed to twist the government’s lawyer into arguing that Indiana should be allowed to seize vehicles for as small an offense as driving 5 mph over the speed limit, which literally elicited laughter in the courtroom.
After Wednesday’s ruling, there’s a better chance that more civil asset forfeiture cases will be laughed right out of court for being what they obviously are: unconstitutional, excessive punishments that don’t fit the crime.
February 20, 2019
Supreme Court Delivers Unanimous Victory for Asset Forfeiture Challenge
[And as Tam said:
When Clarence AND Ruth are on the same side of an argument, you gotta be kind of a weirdo to be on the other side of it.
This is great news.—Joe]