What legislative reforms have been proposed to change federal civil asset forfeiture since 2024?
Executive summary
Since 2024 lawmakers, advocacy groups and think tanks have pushed several overlapping federal reforms to civil asset forfeiture: bipartisan FAIR Act proposals would raise the evidentiary standard, guarantee counsel in certain home-forfeiture cases, and cut off agency profit incentives by redirecting proceeds to the Treasury and ending equitable sharing [1] [2]. Libertarian and criminal-justice reform voices press for still stronger changes—chiefly requiring criminal convictions before most forfeitures and banning agency retention of proceeds—while some senators signal narrower, agency-specific reforms [3] [4].
1. The reform landscape: what has been proposed and by whom
The most visible federal proposal since 2024 is the FAIR Act in both House and Senate versions, advanced by figures including Rep. Tim Walberg in the House and Sens. Cory Booker and Rand Paul in the Senate, which seeks to raise due-process protections and cut financial incentives that critics say have driven abuse [1] [5] [2]. Think tanks such as Cato have advocated complementary but more sweeping reforms—amending CAFRA to require convictions in most cases and forcing forfeiture proceeds to the Treasury rather than to law‑enforcement agencies [3]. Congressional actors in leadership roles, like Sen. Chuck Grassley, have also signalled attention to how particular agencies like the IRS use forfeiture statutes and are exploring legislative fixes [4].
2. The FAIR Act: concrete changes on the table
Text and summaries of the FAIR Act show several concrete legal shifts: raising the civil standard from “preponderance of the evidence” to “clear and convincing evidence” for many forfeitures, requiring court-appointed counsel for indigent owners when a primary residence is at stake, eliminating statutory authority for equitable sharing with state and local agencies, and directing forfeited proceeds into the general Treasury rather than the DOJ Assets Forfeiture Fund—plus enhanced reporting requirements distinguishing civil from criminal forfeiture receipts [1].
3. Alternative reform proposals and ideological convergences
Libertarian and conservative groups join civil‑liberties advocates on some goals, notably ending “policing for profit” by assigning proceeds to the Treasury and narrowing in rem forfeiture uses; Cato explicitly endorses requiring convictions in most cases and prohibiting agencies from “adopting” state cases for equitable sharing [3]. Criminal‑defense organizations such as the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers also call for reforms to protect due process and oppose profit-driven forfeiture practices, illustrating rare cross‑ideological agreement on certain changes even if ultimate remedies differ [6].
4. State reforms and federal counter‑measures: a two‑track debate
State legislatures have been active—27 states and DC updated reporting rules and several closed equitable‑sharing loopholes—creating pressure for federal action to prevent circumvention via federal adoption of state seizures; national proposals reference these state trends as models or warnings about loopholes [7]. Federal proposals explicitly target equitable sharing and the DOJ Assets Forfeiture Fund because critics argue the current structure amplifies incentives for seizures that bypass state protections [1] [3].
5. The legal backdrop shapes what lawmakers propose
Recent court rulings influence the reform debate: the Supreme Court’s 2024 Culley v. Marshall decision declined to set a new federal due‑process standard in forfeiture cases, leaving much of the statutory structure intact and increasing the onus on Congress to act if it seeks substantive change [8] [9]. Justice Department reporting and the historical growth of the Assets Forfeiture Fund—documented in DOJ reports and cited by advocates—underscore the fiscal scale driving the policy fight [10] [11].
6. Stakes, obstacles and what remains unresolved
Proponents frame reforms as restoring presumption of innocence and ending perverse incentives; opponents—primarily some law‑enforcement groups and prosecutors cited in prior debates—argue forfeiture is a vital tool against organized crime and drug trafficking, and they warn reforms could hinder investigations [5] [1]. What reporting does not fully settle is the precise legislative path forward in the current Congress—whether conviction‑requirements, the FAIR Act’s middle path, or narrower agency‑specific constraints will advance—so the outcome remains an open political fight [1] [3] [4].