LIVE From The U.S. Supreme Court

As we gear up for the next Supreme Court term—and celebrate our two recent victories—we have also kept an eye on other cases at the high court, especially where IJ amicus (“friend of the court”) briefs informed outcomes with important implications for the areas we litigate. 

In Culley v. Marshall, the Court determined that due process does not require a preliminary post-seizure hearing to decide whether the government can hold onto property while forfeiture cases proceed. But five Justices wrote separately expressing deep skepticism of civil forfeiture and explicitly calling for more challenges to this power, citing IJ’s recent 6th Circuit forfeiture win and our research detailing the perverse financial incentives inherent in civil forfeiture. We are ready and eager to accept the invitation.

In SEC v. Jarkesy, the Court affirmed that the government must prove its case in an independent court with a real jury before it can impose a fine. This is a step toward restoring justice in federal administrative proceedings, where a single agency can create, adjudicate, and enforce its own rules. IJ is currently challenging fines imposed by in-house administrative judges at several federal agencies, including the Department of Labor. 

We explored these rulings—and many more!—in greater depth during a recent IJ LIVE webinar. This periodic online event series gives a behind-the-scenes look at IJ’s cases, litigation strategy, and long-term vision. It’s available exclusively to members of IJ’s Partners Club, Guardians Circle, and Four Pillars Society. 

Secure your invitation to our next IJ LIVE webinar by joining today with a gift of $1,000 or more ($84/month), or by including IJ in your will or other financial plans. Contact Sarah Grassilli at [email protected] for more information.