United States v. United States Coin & Currency
The Court ruled that a man who had properly refused, on Fifth Amendment grounds, to register and pay a federal gambling tax could also invoke that same privilege to block the government from forfeiting the cash it seized from him, because forfeiture proceedings like this one count as criminal for constitutional purposes.
The Court also held that this new rule applies retroactively to money already seized before the Fifth Amendment ruling came down, because the underlying conduct itself could never be punished consistent with the Constitution -- not just because of a flawed trial procedure.
“proceedings instituted for the purpose of declaring the forfeiture of a man’s property by reason of offences committed by him, though they may be civil in form, are in their nature criminal”
Explaining why forfeiture proceedings trigger Fifth Amendment protections just like criminal prosecutions.
How it got here: A district court ordered forfeiture; the Supreme Court remanded for reconsideration under new Fifth Amendment rulings; the appeals court then ordered the money returned, and the government sought review to resolve a circuit split.
The Case in Depth
What happened
Donald Angelini was convicted of failing to register as a gambler and pay the related federal gambling tax. The government then sued to forfeit $8,674 found in his possession, claiming the money was used in his illegal bookmaking operation. After the Supreme Court later ruled in separate cases that gamblers could invoke the Fifth Amendment to avoid the registration and tax requirements, Angelini argued the same privilege should block the forfeiture of his money.
The question before the Court
Could the government keep money seized from a gambler as a "forfeiture," even though he could not be criminally prosecuted for failing to register and pay the gambling tax because of his Fifth Amendment rights?
Why it matters
Gamblers who had cash or property seized under the forfeiture statute before the Court's 1968 rulings can now get that property back by asserting their Fifth Amendment privilege, even in older, already-decided cases. The decision also draws a broader line: constitutional rulings that make certain conduct entirely un-punishable get full retroactive effect, unlike rulings that merely fix trial procedures.
What changes now
The forfeiture judgment against Angelini is affirmed in his favor, meaning the seized money must be returned to him. The ruling establishes that gamblers whose money was forfeited before the Fifth Amendment privilege was recognized can now seek its return, likely prompting further claims and litigation over previously forfeited property, which the Court acknowledged but found an insufficient reason to limit retroactivity.
What this does not decide
The Court did not decide how far Congress could constitutionally go in forfeiting property from owners who are truly innocent and uninvolved in wrongdoing; it avoided that broader due-process question by reading the statute, together with a companion remission law, to reach only those significantly involved in the crime.
Concurrences and dissents
How the Justices voted
Majority (1). Justice Harlan (author).
Separate writings (1). Justice Brennan (author of a concurrence).
Dissent (1). Justice White (author).
Concurrence — Justice Brennan
Justice Brennan joined the majority in full but wrote separately to rebut the dissent's reasoning at length. He argued that once conduct is declared constitutionally protected, the government has no legitimate interest in continuing to punish people for engaging in it before the ruling, regardless of the source of the constitutional right involved. Read the full concurrence →
Concurrence in part — Justice Black
Justice Black agreed with the Court's judgment and reasoning as far as it went, but would have gone further by outright overruling Linkletter v. Walker and the line of cases limiting retroactivity for procedural rulings.
Dissent — Justice White
“But there remains the interest in maintaining the rule of law and in demonstrating that those who defy the law do not do so with impunity.”The dissent's argument that the government retains a legitimate interest in enforcing laws as they stood when the conduct occurred.
Justice White argued that Angelini's forfeiture was fair and accurate under the law as it stood when it occurred, and that later ruling the underlying statute unconstitutional doesn't automatically erase penalties properly imposed under the old, then-valid law. He pointed to the common-law and statutory tradition of "saving" pending penalties even after a law is repealed or invalidated, and argued the government retains a legitimate interest in enforcing the law as it existed when the conduct occurred. Read the full dissent →
How the Court got there
The legal reasoning, step by step
- The Court relied on Boyd v. United States, which held that forfeiture proceedings, even though civil in form, are criminal in nature for Fifth Amendment purposes because they impose a money penalty for a person's wrongful conduct.
- The government argued this forfeiture law was different because it supposedly punished the property itself regardless of the owner's guilt, following an old legal fiction that objects used in wrongdoing can be treated as themselves 'guilty.' The Court found it didn't need to resolve how far that fiction could stretch under the Constitution's due process and just-compensation guarantees.
- Instead, the Court read the forfeiture statute together with a companion law letting the Treasury Secretary return seized property to owners who show they were not knowingly or negligently involved in the violation, concluding Congress meant to penalize only people significantly involved in the criminal scheme.
- Because the forfeiture was therefore a penalty for someone's own wrongdoing, it counted as criminal under Boyd, so the same Fifth Amendment privilege that shields gamblers from criminal prosecution for failing to register and pay the tax also blocks this kind of forfeiture.
- Turning to retroactivity, the Court distinguished cases involving procedural trial rules -- where retroactivity turns on whether the old procedure undermined accurate fact-finding -- from this case, where the underlying conduct itself could never be constitutionally punished at all.
- Because no fact-finding procedure could ever legitimize punishing constitutionally protected conduct, the Court held the new rule must be given complete retroactive effect, regardless of the administrative burden on the government.
Doctrinal impact
Cases affected by this decision
Reaffirms Boyd v. United States (116 U. S. 616)
Reaffirmed that civil-form forfeiture proceedings are criminal in nature for Fifth Amendment purposes.
Reaffirms Marchetti v. United States (390 U. S. 39)
Extended and applied its Fifth Amendment holding to forfeiture proceedings and gave it full retroactive effect.
Reaffirms Grosso v. United States (390 U. S. 62)
Extended and applied its Fifth Amendment holding to forfeiture proceedings and gave it full retroactive effect.