October Term 2001 · Docket 00-6567
Did prison mail satisfy due process for property forfeiture?
The dispute centers on whether mailing a notice to an inmate satisfies constitutional notice requirements.
Verified source milestones
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
The arguments, in order
This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.
Argument 1 ·
What happened at the argument
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.
Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details
Sources used for this argument breakdown
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 27, lines 5-1 — Transcript, file page 27, lines 5-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-9 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 5-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 54, lines 23-43 — Transcript, file page 54, lines 23-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 55, lines 47-47 — Transcript, file page 55, lines 47-47
A citizen's guide to the whole case
What this case is about
The case examines if serving a forfeiture notice via prison mail meets due process standards.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 27, lines 5-1 — Transcript, file page 27, lines 5-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-9 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 54, lines 23-43 — Transcript, file page 54, lines 23-43
How the case got here
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on October 29, 2001.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 5-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 55, lines 47-47 — Transcript, file page 55, lines 47-47
What each side wants
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.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 27, lines 5-1 — Transcript, file page 27, lines 5-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-9 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 54, lines 23-43 — Transcript, file page 54, lines 23-43
What each side says
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.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 27, lines 5-1 — Transcript, file page 27, lines 5-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-9 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 54, lines 23-43 — Transcript, file page 54, lines 23-43
What the justices asked
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.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 55, lines 47-47 — Transcript, file page 55, lines 47-47
Why it matters
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.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 27, lines 5-1 — Transcript, file page 27, lines 5-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-9 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 54, lines 23-43 — Transcript, file page 54, lines 23-43
What happens next
This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 5-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 55, lines 47-47 — Transcript, file page 55, lines 47-47
Official Court provenance
Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page
Title and summary sources
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 27, lines 5-1 — Transcript, file page 27, lines 5-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-9 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 54, lines 23-43 — Transcript, file page 54, lines 23-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 27, lines 5-1 — Transcript, file page 27, lines 5-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-9 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 54, lines 23-43 — Transcript, file page 54, lines 23-43
Revision history
- Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.
- Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.