Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/524bv.pdf
Page Number: 376

524US2

Unit: $U89

[09-11-00 13:24:46] PAGES PGT: OPIN

Cite as: 524 U. S. 321 (1998)

331

Opinion of the Court

malum in se. . . . [T]he practice has been, and so this
Court understand the law to be, that the proceeding in
rem stands independent of, and wholly unaffected by
any criminal proceeding in personam.” The Palmyra,
12 Wheat., at 14–15.

Traditional in rem forfeitures were thus not considered
punishment against the individual for an offense. See id., at
14; Dobbins’s Distillery v. United States, supra, at 401; Van
Oster v. Kansas, 272 U. S. 465, 467–468 (1926); Calero-Toledo
v. Pearson Yacht Leasing Co., 416 U. S. 663, 683–684 (1974);
Taylor v. United States, 3 How. 197, 210 (1845) (opinion of
Story, J.) (laws providing for in rem forfeiture of goods im-
ported in violation of customs laws, although in one sense
“imposing a penalty or forfeiture[,] . . . truly deserve to be
called, remedial”); see also United States v. Ursery, 518 U. S.
267, 293 (1996) (Kennedy, J., concurring) (“[C]ivil in rem
forfeiture is not punishment of the wrongdoer for his crimi-
nal offense”). Because they were viewed as nonpunitive,
such forfeitures traditionally were considered to occupy a
place outside the domain of the Excessive Fines Clause.
Recognizing the nonpunitive character of such proceedings,
we have held that the Double Jeopardy Clause does not bar
the institution of a civil, in rem forfeiture action after the
criminal conviction of the defendant. See id., at 278.6

The forfeiture in this case does not bear any of the hall-
marks of traditional civil in rem forfeitures. The Govern-

6 It does not follow, of course, that all modern civil in rem forfeitures are
nonpunitive and thus beyond the coverage of the Excessive Fines Clause.
Because some recent federal forfeiture laws have blurred the traditional
distinction between civil in rem and criminal in personam forfeiture, we
have held that a modern statutory forfeiture is a “ﬁne” for Eighth Amend-
ment purposes if it constitutes punishment even in part, regardless of
whether the proceeding is styled in rem or in personam. See Austin v.
United States, supra, at 621–622 (although labeled in rem, civil forfeiture
of real property used “to facilitate” the commission of drug crimes was
punitive in part and thus subject to review under the Excessive Fines
Clause).