Government Takes The Money, Leaves Innocent People With The Bill: Constitutional Attorneys Urges SCOTUS To Hold Government Accountable
WASHINGTON, D.C. — The government shouldn’t be able to take your property, force you to spend a fortune getting it back, and then walk away without paying the legal bills when its case falls apart.
That’s the warning from The Rutherford Institute, which has joined with the Goldwater Institute in urging the U.S. Supreme Court to hold the government financially accountable for civil asset forfeiture abuses. In a joint amicus brief filed in Ross v. United States, the civil liberties groups warn that innocent property owners can be left paying the price for government overreach—even when they get their property back.
The case arose after the federal government seized more than $1.2 million in funds unrelated to a suspected fraud, leaving attorney Richard Ross to spend over $100,000 in legal fees fighting to recover the money—only to have the government drop its case and refuse to reimburse those expenses.
“If government officials know they can overreach without being held financially accountable, what’s to stop them from doing it again?” said constitutional attorney John W. Whitehead, president of The Rutherford Institute and author of Battlefield America: The War on the American People. “For innocent property owners, the cost of fighting back can be devastating. Constitutional rights shouldn’t depend on how much money you can afford to spend defending them.”
The case involves Richard Ross, an attorney who became the victim of a fraud scheme involving money transferred into his client trust account. Although federal officials suspected some of the money was connected to criminal activity, they seized the entire account, including more than $1.2 million they acknowledged appeared unrelated to the alleged fraud. Ross was never accused of wrongdoing. He spent more than a year and over $100,000 in legal expenses fighting to recover the unrelated funds. Eventually, the government dropped the case and returned the money. But the government refused to reimburse his legal expenses, arguing that because it had dismissed the case before a final judgment, Ross hadn’t technically won. The lower courts agreed.
At issue is a provision of the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act of 2000, a federal law Congress enacted to address abuses in the government’s power to seize property. Under civil asset forfeiture, authorities can seize cash, vehicles, homes and other property suspected of being connected to criminal activity without first securing a criminal conviction against the owner. Recovering that property may require lengthy and costly litigation.
Recognizing the burden on innocent property owners, Congress provided that claimants who “substantially prevail” in federal civil forfeiture proceedings can recover reasonable attorneys’ fees and certain litigation expenses. The question in Ross’s case is whether someone who successfully recovers seized property after the government voluntarily dismisses its case qualifies for those protections.
The Rutherford Institute and the Goldwater Institute argue that the answer should be yes. Otherwise, the government can pursue questionable forfeiture actions, force property owners to incur substantial legal expenses and then potentially escape financial responsibility by dropping the case before an unfavorable court ruling. That interpretation, the groups warn, undermines Congress’s attempt to protect property owners and remove incentives for aggressive or unjustified seizures. It also creates a particularly serious burden for people who cannot afford to hire lawyers or spend years trying to recover their money or belongings. The Rutherford Institute and the Goldwater Institute are urging the Supreme Court to grant review and clarify that property owners who successfully defend against forfeiture can qualify for attorneys’ fees even when the government voluntarily abandons its case.
Kevin F. King, Sydney Engle, Matthew J. Glover, MaKade C. Claypool, and Noah C. Zimmermann of Covington & Burling LLP advanced the arguments in the brief.
The Rutherford Institute, a nonprofit civil liberties organization, provides legal assistance at no charge to individuals whose constitutional rights have been threatened or violated, and educates the public on a wide spectrum of issues affecting their freedoms.
Case History
Legal Feature: Policing for Profit: When the Government Takes Your Property and Makes You Pay to Get It Back
Ross v. United States
Article posted with permission from John Whitehead
