Kaley v. United States
The Supreme Court ruled that a married couple charged with reselling stolen medical devices could not ask a judge to re-examine the grand jury's finding of probable cause, even though the government had frozen the money they needed to hire the lawyers of their choice.
The 6-3 decision means that once a grand jury indicts someone, that finding of probable cause is final for purposes of a pretrial asset freeze, leaving defendants without a hearing to challenge whether the underlying charges were ever justified.
“The grand jury gets to say—without any review, oversight, or second-guessing—whether probable cause exists to think that a person committed a crime.”
Explaining why the Court treats a grand jury's probable cause finding as final.
How it got here: A federal trial court let the Kaleys contest only whether their assets were traceable to the crime, not the underlying probable cause; the Eleventh Circuit affirmed, and the Supreme Court agreed to review the split among circuits.
The Case in Depth
What happened
Kerri Kaley, a medical device sales representative, and her husband Brian were indicted for reselling surplus medical devices and laundering the proceeds. After the indictment, the government froze their assets, including a $500,000 certificate of deposit they had set aside to pay their chosen defense lawyers, arguing the money was traceable to the alleged crimes.
The question before the Court
If prosecutors freeze a married couple's assets before trial so they can't pay their chosen lawyer, can a judge second-guess the grand jury's finding that there was probable cause for the charges?
Why it matters
Defendants whose assets are frozen before trial cannot get a judge to reconsider whether the charges themselves were ever supported by probable cause, even when that freeze prevents them from hiring the lawyer they most want. This especially affects people accused of crimes carrying forfeiture, who may be pushed toward a public defender or a less-preferred attorney while presumed innocent.
What changes now
This is a final decision on the merits, not a temporary order. The case goes back to the lower courts for further proceedings, but the Kaleys cannot challenge the grand jury's probable cause finding at any asset-freeze hearing. They may still argue that the frozen assets are not actually traceable to the alleged crimes, a separate issue the government concedes they can raise. Congress remains free to give defendants broader rights than the Constitution requires.
What this does not decide
The Court did not decide whether defendants can challenge whether frozen assets are actually traceable to the alleged crime — the government conceded that right applies, and the Court did not question it. It also did not decide the case under Mathews v. Eldridge on its own terms, since it assumed that test could apply and found it still favored the government.
Concurrences and dissents
Dissent — Justice Roberts
“An individual facing serious criminal charges brought by the United States has little but the Constitution and his attorney standing between him and prison.”Roberts opens his dissent stressing how vital a chosen lawyer is to a criminal defendant.
Chief Justice Roberts argued that freezing a defendant's assets to pay chosen counsel without any hearing is fundamentally unfair, especially given how central the right to counsel of one's choice is under the Sixth Amendment. He argued a hearing on the merits of the charges would not actually relitigate the grand jury's finding, since it would use different evidence for a different purpose (releasing frozen assets, not dismissing the indictment), much like bail hearings already allow judges to weigh the strength of the evidence. He would have required a hearing before letting the government strip defendants of chosen counsel.
How the Court got there
The legal reasoning, step by step
- The Court began from its 1989 ruling in United States v. Monsanto, which allows the government to freeze a defendant's assets before trial, even assets needed to pay a lawyer, as long as there is probable cause to believe the assets will ultimately be forfeitable.
- The Court then invoked the long-standing rule that a grand jury's finding of probable cause to bring criminal charges is treated as conclusive: courts do not reopen or second-guess whether the evidence presented to the grand jury was strong enough, because the grand jury's historic role is to make that call on its own.
- Because a grand jury's probable cause finding can, by itself, justify holding someone in custody or issuing an arrest warrant without further judicial review, the Court reasoned the same finding is equally sufficient to justify freezing property, since there was no principled reason to treat a property freeze more skeptically than a liberty restraint.
- The Court warned that letting a trial judge reach a different probable cause conclusion than the grand jury would create two clashing findings governing the same case, with the same judge who found no probable cause then presiding over a trial premised on its existence.
- Even applying the Mathews v. Eldridge balancing test — which weighs the burden on the government, the private interest at stake, and the added benefit of extra procedure — the Court found that a full hearing would add little value, because probable cause is a low bar the grand jury has already cleared reliably without an adversarial process.
- The Court concluded that because indicted defendants have no right to relitigate a grand jury's probable cause finding for other purposes like detention, they likewise have no constitutional right to relitigate it merely because the consequence at stake is a frozen bank account rather than lost liberty.
Doctrinal impact
Cases affected by this decision
Reaffirms United States v. Monsanto (491 U. S. 600)
The Court relies on Monsanto's rule that probable cause justifies freezing assets needed to pay a lawyer.
Reaffirms Caplin & Drysdale, Chartered v. United States (491 U. S. 617)
The Court leans on this case's holding that defendants have no right to spend forfeitable money on a lawyer.