# United States v. Ursery

> Supreme Court of the United States · June 24, 1996 · 518 U.S. 267

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9433352

## Case

- **Full name:** United States v. Ursery
- **Court:** Supreme Court of the United States
- **Decided:** June 24, 1996
- **Citations:** 518 U.S. 267; 116 S. Ct. 2135; 135 L. Ed. 2d 549; 1996 U.S. LEXIS 4256
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Scalia
- **Judges:** Rehnquist, O'Con-Nor, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer, Scalia, Thomas, Stevens
- **Cited by:** 1,204 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9433352

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- finding that § 981(a)(1)(A) "serve[s] important nonpuni-tive goals” and “[tjhough both §§ 881(a) and 981(a) contain an ‘innocent owner’ exception, we do not think that such a provision, without more indication of an intent to punish, is relevant to the question whether a statu…
- finding that § 981(a)(1)(A) "serve[s] important nonpunitive goals" and "[t]hough both §§ 881(a) and 981(a) contain an `innocent owner' exception, we do not think that such a provision, without more indication of an intent to punish, is relevant to the question whether a statut…
- holding that, although certain punitive aspects are present, in rem forfeitures serve important nonpunitive goals and are neither "punishment" nor "criminal" for double jeopardy consideration, thus, the forfeiture of property as a result of a civil complaint does not bar a sub…
- explaining that, “at common law, not only was it the case that a criminal conviction did not bar a civil forfeiture, but, in fact, the civil forfeiture could not be instituted unless a criminal conviction had already been obtained” (emphases in original)
- explaining that Congress’ intent that a forfeiture would be a civil proceeding was “ ‘most clearly demonstrated by the procedural mechanisms it established for enforcing forfei- tures under the statute[s]’ ” (quoting 89 Firearms, 465 US at 363 )

## Opinion text

Justice Scalia,
with whom Justice Thomas joins, concurring in the judgment.
In my view, the Double Jeopardy Clause prohibits successive prosecution, not successive punishment. See Department of Revenue of Mont. v. Kurth Ranch, 511 U. S. 767, 798 (1994) (Scalia, J., dissenting). Civil forfeiture proceedings of the sort at issue here are not criminal prosecutions, even under the standard of Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez, 372 U. S. 144, 164 (1963), and United States v. Ward, 448 U. S. 242, 248-251 (1980).

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9433352. Public record. Not legal advice.