Court Opinion

ID: 9432888
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-02 23:36:41.150301+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:23:36.175242
License: Public Domain

Justice Souter,
concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part.
I agree with the Court that petitioner has not demonstrated that the forfeiture at issue here qualifies as a prior restraint as we have traditionally understood that term. I *560also agree with the Court that the case should be remanded for a determination whether the forfeiture violated the Excessive Fines Clause of the Eighth Amendment. Nonetheless, I agree with Justice Kennedy that the First Amendment forbids the forfeiture of petitioner’s expressive material in the absence of an adjudication that it is obscene or otherwise of unprotected character, and therefore I join Part II of his dissenting opinion.