Kaley v. United States
The Supreme Court ruled that people who have already been indicted cannot ask a judge to reconsider a grand jury's finding that there was probable cause for the criminal charges, even when they are trying to unfreeze money the government has seized before trial in order to pay for a lawyer of their choice.
Because grand jury findings of probable cause have long been treated as final and unreviewable, the Court held that this same rule applies when frozen assets rather than physical liberty are at stake, even though the couple's ability to hire their preferred attorney is at risk.
“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.”
The majority's core statement of why grand jury probable-cause findings are final.
How it got here: A federal trial court let the couple contest only whether the frozen assets were traceable to the alleged crimes, not the indictment's validity; the Eleventh Circuit affirmed, and the Supreme Court took the case to resolve a circuit split.
The Case in Depth
What happened
Kerri Kaley, a medical device sales representative, and her husband Brian were indicted for reselling supposedly stolen medical devices and laundering the proceeds. Before trial, the government froze their assets, including a $500,000 certificate of deposit the couple had set aside to pay their chosen defense attorney. The couple asked a court to lift the freeze, arguing the underlying charges were baseless.
The question before the Court
If prosecutors freeze a married couple's money before trial so they can't pay their chosen lawyer, can the couple get a judge to second-guess the grand jury's finding that there was enough evidence to charge them?
The Court's answer
No — the Court ruled that an indicted defendant has no constitutional right to a hearing challenging the grand jury's finding of probable cause, even when trying to unfreeze assets needed to pay a chosen lawyer. Grand jury probable-cause findings have long been treated as final, and that rule applies whether the consequence is arrest, detention, or an asset freeze.
The Court also tested this conclusion under a due-process balancing test the defendants urged it to apply, and found the same result: while defendants have a real interest in hiring their preferred lawyer, a court hearing on probable cause would add little value, since courts almost never find that a grand jury got it wrong. So the freeze stands without a further hearing on the underlying charges.
Curious how the Court got there? See the step-by-step legal reasoning →
Why it matters
Defendants across the country whose assets are frozen before trial under federal forfeiture law cannot get a separate court hearing to argue the underlying charges are baseless, even if that freeze prevents them from paying a chosen lawyer. Prosecutors keep significant leverage over defendants' choice of counsel simply by seeking forfeiture in the indictment, unless Congress changes the rules.
What changes now
This is a final merits ruling, not a temporary order. The case is sent back to the lower courts for further proceedings consistent with the decision, meaning the Kaleys' assets remain frozen and they cannot use a hearing to attack the validity of the indictment itself. The Court noted that Congress remains free to pass a law giving defendants broader rights to challenge asset freezes if it chooses to.
What this does not decide
The Court did not decide whether defendants can challenge whether the frozen assets are actually connected to the alleged crime — the government already conceded that right exists. The ruling addresses only whether defendants can also relitigate the underlying probable-cause finding that led to the charges themselves.
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. He might readily give all he owns to defend himself.”The dissent's opening statement on why counsel of choice matters so much to a defendant.
Chief Justice Roberts argued that the right to counsel of one's choice is too fundamental to be cut off without any hearing, especially since a prosecutor unilaterally controls whether to seek forfeiture. He argued the requested hearing would not really relitigate the grand jury's finding because it would use different evidence for a different purpose, similar to bail hearings where judges already weigh the evidence's strength. He would have required a hearing before trial, since the harm from losing chosen counsel cannot be undone later.
How the Court got there
The legal reasoning, step by step
- The Court began from its earlier ruling in Monsanto, which held that the government may freeze an indicted defendant's assets before trial, even assets needed to pay a lawyer, as long as there is probable cause to believe the assets are tied to a forfeitable crime.
- The Court then relied on a long-standing rule that a grand jury's finding of probable cause to bring criminal charges is treated as conclusive and is not subject to a judge's later second-guessing, because the grand jury alone is entrusted with that gatekeeping role.
- Since a grand jury's probable-cause finding alone can justify arresting a defendant or holding her in jail before trial, the Court reasoned there was no principled reason it could not also justify freezing her property before trial.
- The Court also tested its conclusion under the Mathews v. Eldridge balancing test — a framework that weighs the government's burden, the private interest at stake, and how much a proposed extra procedure would actually reduce mistaken outcomes.
- Applying that framework, the Court found the government's interest in avoiding a preview of its trial evidence was substantial, the defendants' interest in retaining chosen counsel was serious, but a court hearing was unlikely to uncover any mistake in the grand jury's probable-cause finding, since courts had never found probable cause lacking in similar cases over two decades.
- The Court concluded that because an added hearing would add little practical value in catching errors, indicted defendants have no constitutional right to relitigate the grand jury's probable-cause finding at an asset-freeze hearing.
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 a defendant's assets before trial.
Reaffirms Gerstein v. Pugh (420 U. S. 103)
The Court leans on Gerstein's holding that grand jury probable-cause findings need no adversarial hearing.