Reason: Compensation for Legal Fees Is a Critical Protection Against Civil Forfeiture Abuses

Reason: Compensation for Legal Fees Is a Critical Protection Against Civil Forfeiture Abuses by Jacob Sullum (“A recent federal appeals court decision underlines the importance of that safeguard.”) [United States v. Moore, 23-10971 (11th Cir. Aug. 20, 2025)]:

The government’s evidence was so weak that it decided to drop the case after Moore challenged the seizure in federal court. Moore got his money back, but he was still out thousands of dollars in legal fees until last week, when the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit ruled that he was entitled to compensation for those expenses.

Unlike criminal defendants, civil forfeiture targets have no right to court-appointed counsel, which helps explain why they usually give up without a fight. According to one estimate, more than nine out of 10 federal civil forfeiture cases are resolved without judicial involvement.

Challenging a forfeiture is a complicated and daunting process that is very difficult to navigate without a lawyer. But the cost of hiring one typically exceeds the value of the seized property, meaning forfeiture targets can lose even when they win.

Congress tried to address that problem by passing the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act (CAFRA), a 2000 law that says “the United States shall be liable for reasonable attorney fees” whenever a property owner “substantially prevails” in a federal forfeiture case. But when Moore got his money back and sought $15,000 to pay his lawyers, U.S. District Judge Thomas W. Thrash Jr. ruled that he was not entitled to compensation under CAFRA because he had not met that standard.

Other article here.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.