Circuit split · civil forfeiture
Whether CAFRA's heightened burden of proof on the government applies retroactively to civil forfeiture proceedings that were already pending when the statute took effect
1 federal appellate case on this question, each acknowledging the disagreement in its own words.
- United States v. $80,180.00 in U.S. Currency303 F3D 1182
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals · September 19, 2002
“Because we disagree with the Sixth Circuit’s conclusion that Congress did not offer clear instruction on the scope of CAFRA’s reach, we decline to follow its contrary holding that the heightened governmental burden applies to pending cases.” — Disagrees with another circuit
Empirical analysis of this case →
The provision at issue
18 U.S.C. § 983 — General rules for civil forfeiture proceedings
“(a) Notice; Claim; Complaint.— (1) (A) (i) Except as provided in clauses (ii) through (v), in any nonjudicial civil forfeiture proceeding under a civil forfeiture statute, with respect to which the Government is required to send written notice to interested parties, such notice shall be sent in a manner to achieve proper notice as soon as practicable, and in no case more than 60 days after the date of the seizure. (ii) No notice is required if, before the 60-day period expires, the Government files a civil judicial forfeiture action against …”Read the full section →
The other side of the split
Decisions the acknowledging court(s) named as the opposing or joined side, quoted in the acknowledging opinion's own words.
- Declined to follow · 6th Cir.Real Property in Section 9241 F.3d 798
What the split turns on
- Anchor precedents:
- Landgraf511 U.S. 256
Cases are grouped by the legal question they announce a split on, classified from the court's own acknowledgment sentence. Verified acknowledgments only. Counter-side decisions are extracted from the acknowledging opinions' own text and linked only when the citation resolves in this corpus. See all circuit splits.