This educational guide is based on the linked primary sources. It is not a Court publication, is not affiliated with the Court, and is not legal advice.
In brief
Overview
Larry Dean Dusenbery v. United States concerns the forfeiture of $22,000 after the government mailed a notice to him while he was incarcerated.
According to United States, the dispute centers on whether the 1988 mailing procedures satisfied due process notice requirements, even if the notice was not actually received.
Background and question before the Court
According to Chief Justice Rehnquist, the Court asked whether the government's mailing and prison delivery methods were sufficient to satisfy the Due Process Clause's notice requirement.
What each side argues
Petitioner Position
Petitioner argues that the 1988 procedures did not assure delivery because what happened after the mail reached the prison mailroom was vague and undocumented.
Respondent Position
The United States maintains that its 1988 procedures satisfied due process regardless of whether the notice was received.
The Government argues that ordinary mail is sufficient, as in many comparable cases.
According to Mr. MINEAR, attorney Jeffrey P. Minear cited precedent that notice requirements are met by a method reasonably calculated to provide notice.
What happened at oral argument
Jeffrey P. Minear presented oral argument on behalf of the respondent.
According to Chief Justice Rehnquist, justices questioned whether staff at the prison delivering mail sufficed for notice.
According to Chief Justice Rehnquist, justices asked if actual notice had ever been required.
According to Justice, justices inquired about the Third Circuit’s test requiring prison procedures to be reasonably calculated to deliver notice.
According to Justice, justices asked whether that standard would be satisfactory to the Government.
Justice Scalia asked whether the Government has special procedures for military personnel.
- [1] 9ec819c8f6b0aa3c0fc8-r1-3bd0aa3ba0b2b317.pdf, p. 27
- [2] 9ec819c8f6b0aa3c0fc8-r1-3bd0aa3ba0b2b317.pdf, p. 4
- [3] 9ec819c8f6b0aa3c0fc8-r1-3bd0aa3ba0b2b317.pdf, p. 4
- [4] 9ec819c8f6b0aa3c0fc8-r1-3bd0aa3ba0b2b317.pdf, p. 37
- [5] 9ec819c8f6b0aa3c0fc8-r1-3bd0aa3ba0b2b317.pdf, p. 38
- [6] 9ec819c8f6b0aa3c0fc8-r1-3bd0aa3ba0b2b317.pdf, p. 40
What the Court decided
Why it matters
Terms to know
No glossary terms are available for this guide.
Primary sources
Read the source materials on the official site or open the immutable repository copy used for this guide.
- 9ec819c8f6b0aa3c0fc8-r1-3bd0aa3ba0b2b317.pdforal argument transcript
Guide generated September 19, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.