## Facts

- Federal authorities pursued a civil in rem forfeiture of Guy Ursery’s home under 21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(7), alleging the property facilitated marijuana-related activity.
- Around the same period, Ursery was federally indicted and later convicted for manufacturing marijuana under 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1).
- In a separate matter, the government filed a civil in rem forfeiture action against currency and other property linked to respondents Arlt and Wren, alleging forfeiture under 18 U.S.C. § 981(a)(1)(A) (property involved in money laundering) and 21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(6) (drug proceeds).
- The forfeiture litigation in the Arlt/Wren matter was deferred while related federal criminal prosecutions proceeded; Arlt and Wren were convicted of drug-conspiracy and money-laundering offenses.
- After the criminal convictions, the government obtained summary judgment in the civil forfeiture case.
- The Sixth and Ninth Circuits concluded that the civil forfeitures constituted punishment, and therefore the Double Jeopardy Clause barred the subsequent or parallel proceedings based on the same conduct.
- The Supreme Court consolidated the cases for review.

## Issues

1. Whether civil in rem forfeitures under 21 U.S.C. § 881 and 18 U.S.C. § 981, when pursued in separate proceedings from related criminal cases, constitute “punishment” that triggers the Double Jeopardy Clause’s bar on multiple punishments or successive prosecutions for the same offense.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed the judgments of the Sixth and Ninth Circuits.
- The Court held that in rem civil forfeitures under the statutes at issue are neither “punishment” nor criminal for Double Jeopardy purposes.
- The Court reinstated Ursery’s criminal conviction and the forfeiture judgment against the property associated with Arlt and Wren.

## Legal Principles

- The Double Jeopardy Clause protects against multiple criminal punishments for the same offense; it does not bar a civil remedial sanction paired with a criminal prosecution.
- Determining whether a sanction is civil or criminal follows a two-step inquiry: (1) whether Congress intended the proceeding to be civil, and (2) whether the sanction is so punitive in purpose or effect as to override that intent.
- Only the “clearest proof” can transform a statutorily civil forfeiture into a criminal punishment for constitutional purposes.
- Traditional in rem civil forfeiture has a long historical pedigree as a civil remedy and has been consistently treated as nonpunitive for Double Jeopardy analysis.
- Decisions addressing disproportionate civil penalties or the Eighth Amendment excessive-fines analysis do not establish that all civil forfeitures are punishment for Double Jeopardy purposes.

## Conclusion

Civil in rem forfeitures under federal drug and money-laundering forfeiture statutes are treated as civil and remedial rather than criminal punishment; therefore, the government may pursue such forfeiture actions and related criminal prosecutions arising from the same conduct without violating the Double Jeopardy Clause.


United States v. Ursery, 518 U.S. 267 (1996)