{"argument_date":"2001-10-29T00:00:00Z","arguments":[{"argument_date":"2001-10-29T00:00:00Z","heading":"What happened at the argument","official_detail_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcript/2001","official_transcript_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2001/00-6567.pdf","paragraphs":["Ms. Zieve argued the notice procedures failed due process requirements.","Mr. Minear argued the notice method satisfied constitutional standards.","Ms. Zieve stated the side that brought the case made claims for eight property categories.","Mr. Minear cited precedent supporting reasonably calculated notice methods."],"reargument":false,"sequence":1,"sources":[{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 27, lines 5-1","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2001/00-6567.pdf","page_label":"file page 27, lines 5-1"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-9","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2001/00-6567.pdf","page_label":"file page 3, lines 17-9"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-15","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2001/00-6567.pdf","page_label":"file page 3, lines 5-15"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 54, lines 23-43","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2001/00-6567.pdf","page_label":"file page 54, lines 23-43"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 55, lines 47-47","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2001/00-6567.pdf","page_label":"file page 55, lines 47-47"}]}],"caption":"Dusenbery v. United States","case_history":[{"changed_at":"2026-08-29T20:06:32.797286Z","explanation":"An official oral-argument transcript was verified.","status":"argued"},{"changed_at":"2026-08-29T20:06:32.817926Z","explanation":"An official oral-argument transcript was verified.","status":"argued"}],"case_status":"argued","dek":"The dispute centers on whether mailing a notice to an inmate satisfies constitutional notice requirements.","dek_sources":[{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 27, lines 5-1","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2001/00-6567.pdf","page_label":"file page 27, lines 5-1"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-9","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2001/00-6567.pdf","page_label":"file page 3, lines 17-9"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 54, lines 23-43","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2001/00-6567.pdf","page_label":"file page 54, lines 23-43"}],"dispositions":[],"latest_court_document_date":"2001-10-29T00:00:00Z","maturity":"official_transcript","official_detail_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcript/2001","official_disposition_urls":[],"official_docket_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/00-6567.html","primary_docket":"00-6567","revisions":[{"correction_note":"Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.","created_at":"2026-08-31T17:37:10.560408Z","maturity":"official_transcript","revision_number":1},{"correction_note":"Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.","created_at":"2026-09-05T03:22:24Z","maturity":"official_transcript","revision_number":2}],"schema_version":"1.1","sections":[{"heading":"What this case is about","paragraphs":["The case examines if serving a forfeiture notice via prison mail meets due process standards."],"sources":[{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 27, lines 5-1","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2001/00-6567.pdf","page_label":"file page 27, lines 5-1"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-9","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2001/00-6567.pdf","page_label":"file page 3, lines 17-9"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 54, lines 23-43","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2001/00-6567.pdf","page_label":"file page 54, lines 23-43"}]},{"heading":"How the case got here","paragraphs":["The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on October 29, 2001."],"sources":[{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-15","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2001/00-6567.pdf","page_label":"file page 3, lines 5-15"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 55, lines 47-47","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2001/00-6567.pdf","page_label":"file page 55, lines 47-47"}]},{"heading":"What each side wants","paragraphs":["the side that brought the case seeks a ruling that prison mail notice violated due process.","Government seeks a ruling that prison mail notice satisfied due process."],"sources":[{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 27, lines 5-1","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2001/00-6567.pdf","page_label":"file page 27, lines 5-1"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-9","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2001/00-6567.pdf","page_label":"file page 3, lines 17-9"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 54, lines 23-43","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2001/00-6567.pdf","page_label":"file page 54, lines 23-43"}]},{"heading":"What each side says","paragraphs":["the side that brought the case argues the notice method failed to provide adequate constitutional protection.","Government argues the method was reasonably calculated to provide notice."],"sources":[{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 27, lines 5-1","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2001/00-6567.pdf","page_label":"file page 27, lines 5-1"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-9","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2001/00-6567.pdf","page_label":"file page 3, lines 17-9"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 54, lines 23-43","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2001/00-6567.pdf","page_label":"file page 54, lines 23-43"}]},{"heading":"What the justices asked","paragraphs":["Chief Justice Rehnquist asked if the case involved false claims.","Chief Justice Rehnquist asked about the specific property claims made by the side that brought the case."],"sources":[{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 55, lines 47-47","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2001/00-6567.pdf","page_label":"file page 55, lines 47-47"}]},{"heading":"Why it matters","paragraphs":["This case defines the minimum notice standards for government property seizures. It clarifies how agencies must inform individuals of legal actions. The outcome sets a precedent for future forfeiture proceedings involving incarcerated individuals."],"sources":[{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 27, lines 5-1","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2001/00-6567.pdf","page_label":"file page 27, lines 5-1"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-9","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2001/00-6567.pdf","page_label":"file page 3, lines 17-9"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 54, lines 23-43","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2001/00-6567.pdf","page_label":"file page 54, lines 23-43"}]},{"heading":"What happens next","paragraphs":["This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity."],"sources":[{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-15","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2001/00-6567.pdf","page_label":"file page 3, lines 5-15"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 55, lines 47-47","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2001/00-6567.pdf","page_label":"file page 55, lines 47-47"}]}],"slug":"2001-00-6567-dusenbery-v-united-states","term":"2001","title":"Did prison mail satisfy due process for property forfeiture?","title_sources":[{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 27, lines 5-1","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2001/00-6567.pdf","page_label":"file page 27, lines 5-1"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-9","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2001/00-6567.pdf","page_label":"file page 3, lines 17-9"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 54, lines 23-43","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2001/00-6567.pdf","page_label":"file page 54, lines 23-43"}],"topics":[],"undated_disposition_date_fallback":null,"updated_at":"2026-09-05T03:22:24Z"}