Justice Kavanaugh concluded with the following in relevant part: Similarly, petitioners’ contention that Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U. S. 319, should govern petitioners’ request for a preliminary hearing fails given that this Court decided $8,850 and Von Neumann after Mathews. In addition, petitioners point to the Court’s Fourth Amendment decisions in the criminal context to support their contention that a preliminary hearing is required in the civil forfeiture context. That analogy fails. Fourth Amendment hearings are not adversarial, and address only whether probable cause supports the arrestee’s detention. See Gerstein v. Pugh, 420 U. S. 103, 119–122. Here, petitioners argue that the immediate seizure of personal property requires adversarial preliminary hearings, and they assert that those hearings must address their affirmative defense of innocent ownership. But the Due Process Clause does not require more extensive preliminary procedures for the temporary retention of property than for the temporary restraint of persons.
Historical practice reinforces the Court’s conclusions in $8,850 and Von Neumann that due process does not require preliminary hearings in civil forfeiture cases. Since the Founding era, many federal and state statutes have authorized the Government to seize personal property and hold it pending a forfeiture hearing, without a separate preliminary hearing. Petitioners and their amici do not identify any federal or state statutes that, before the late 20th century, required preliminary hearings in civil forfeiture cases. Some States have recently enacted laws requiring preliminary hearings in civil forfeiture cases, but those recent laws do not support a constitutional mandate for preliminary hearings in every State. History demonstrates that both Congress and the States have long authorized law enforcement to seize personal property and hold it until a forfeiture hearing. The absence of separate preliminary hearings in civil forfeiture proceedings— from the Founding until the late 20th century—is weighty evidence that due process does not require such hearings.
Another argument against forfeiture proceedings is that they create a motivation to pursue prosecutions that will maximize the enrichment of the prosecutor’s office. Prosecutions should be prioritized based on the protection of the community.
