United States v. One Assortment of 89 Firearms

Background

A gun owner, Patrick Mulcahey, had about 89 firearms seized by federal agents after an investigation in 1977. He was tried on criminal charges for dealing in firearms without a license and was acquitted after arguing entrapment. After that not-guilty verdict, the federal government brought a separate civil action against the guns themselves to forfeit them under a federal forfeiture law (section 924(d)). The District Court ordered the guns forfeited, but the Fourth Circuit sitting en banc reversed, saying the earlier acquittal barred the civil forfeiture.

Reasoning

The Supreme Court reviewed whether the earlier acquittal prevents a later civil forfeiture of the same firearms. The Court explained the civil forfeiture is an action against the property (the guns), not a criminal punishment of the owner, and noted that the government and criminal cases use different legal standards of proof. The Justices relied on earlier rulings saying civil penalties can follow criminal trials and examined statutory text and procedures. Because Congress created civil procedures for forfeiture and intended remedial aims like removing dangerous weapons from circulation, the Court held the forfeiture is civil, not criminal, so double jeopardy and collateral estoppel do not block it.

Real world impact

The ruling means federal authorities can pursue a civil forfeiture of seized firearms even after the owner was acquitted criminally, so seized guns may still be removed from circulation. The decision overruled an older case to the extent it suggested an acquittal automatically precludes later civil forfeiture, and the case goes back to the lower courts for further proceedings.