## Facts

- During the Civil War, the United States treated Virginia and other seceded states as being in rebellion.
- McVeigh was a Virginia resident who owned real and personal property in Virginia.
- Under a federal statute authorizing forfeiture and sale of property owned by persons treated as “rebels,” the United States published notice that it would petition the United States District Court for the District of Virginia for an order declaring McVeigh a rebel and condemning his property.
- McVeigh retained an attorney who was loyal to the United States to appear in federal court and oppose the government’s petition on McVeigh’s behalf.
- The United States moved to strike the attorney’s filings, arguing that because McVeigh was a rebel citizen, he was not entitled to defend in a federal court.
- The district court granted the motion, struck the attorney’s filings, declared McVeigh a rebel, and entered a decree condemning his property.
- McVeigh’s attorney appealed to the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Virginia, which affirmed the district court’s decree.
- McVeigh, through counsel, sought review in the United States Supreme Court.

## Issues

1. Whether an owner whose property is targeted for forfeiture under a Civil War confiscation statute may appear by counsel and contest the government’s allegations even if the owner is alleged to be a rebel.
2. Whether a federal court may strike the owner’s defensive filings and condemn the property based solely on the owner’s alleged rebel status.
3. Whether the owner may seek Supreme Court review of a final decree condemning his property.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed.
- The Court held that McVeigh was entitled to appear by counsel and contest the government’s charges on which forfeiture depended, notwithstanding the government’s allegation that he was a rebel.
- The Court held that the lower courts erred in striking the attorney’s filings and proceeding to condemnation without allowing a defense.
- The Court held that McVeigh could obtain Supreme Court review of the final condemnation decree through the normal appellate process.

## Legal Principles

- When forfeiture turns on allegations against a particular owner, the owner must be allowed to appear and contest the allegations on which condemnation depends.
- A court may not deny a hearing and condemn property merely by labeling the owner an enemy or rebel; the adjudication must allow the owner’s counsel to be heard.
- Final decrees condemning property in such proceedings are subject to appellate review in the Supreme Court.

## Conclusion

McVeigh v. United States holds that Civil War confiscation proceedings cannot be conducted as one-sided condemnations based only on the government’s assertion that the owner is a rebel: the owner may appear through counsel to contest the allegations supporting forfeiture, and may seek Supreme Court review of a final decree condemning the property.


McVeigh v. United States, 78 F.2d 259 (1870)