October Term 2015 · Docket 14-419

Can the government freeze a defendant's clean funds to pay for legal defense?

The dispute centers on whether a pretrial freeze order can seize money a defendant earned legally to pay for their attorney.

Official caption
Luis v. United States
Latest argument session
Latest official Court activity
Latest verified event
Argued
Sources analyzed through
Official Transcript

Verified source milestones

  1. — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
  2. — 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.

  1. Argument 1 ·

    What happened at the argument

    Mr. Srebnick argued the Sixth Amendment protects the right to spend one's own money on counsel.

    Mr. Dreeben argued the principle from Monsanto resolves the case regarding substitute property.

    Chief Justice Roberts questioned how defendants manage daily expenses under a total freeze.

    Justice Kennedy asked about the difficulty of tracing assets to determine their taint.

    Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details

    Sources used for this argument breakdown

A citizen's guide to the whole case

What this case is about

Luis argues the Sixth Amendment protects her right to spend her own clean money on legal counsel. The government contends the freeze order is valid because it targets proceeds from drug activity. The lower court upheld the freeze, and Luis seeks reversal.

Official sources for this section

How the case got here

The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on November 10, 2015.

Official sources for this section

What each side wants

Luis wants the Court to strike down the freeze order on her clean funds.

The government wants the Court to uphold the freeze order on her assets.

Official sources for this section

What each side says

Luis argues the Sixth Amendment guarantees the right to spend one's own money on counsel.

The government argues the freeze order is valid because it targets drug proceeds.

Official sources for this section

What the justices asked

Chief Justice Roberts asked how a defendant pays daily expenses if the freeze covers all money.

Justice Kennedy asked whether assets can be traced to determine their taint status.

Official sources for this section

Why it matters

This case defines the boundary between government power and individual rights. It determines whether defendants can access their own funds for legal defense. The outcome shapes pretrial procedures for all criminal defendants.

Official sources for this section

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 Court provenance

Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page

Title and summary sources

Revision history

  1. Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·

    Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.

  2. Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·

    Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.

Download this sanitized case as JSON