The Supreme Court issued an opinion on Wednesday that is a shot across the bow of defenders of civil asset forfeiture. In a unanimous judgment, the justices incorporated the Excessive Fines Clause of the Eighth Amendment to the states. The Court didn’t rule on the dubious constitutionality of civil asset forfeiture, leaving that issue for another day.

Welcome to FreedomWorks Foundation’s second regulatory review of 2019! Our Regulatory Action Center proudly updates you with our favorite tidbits from the swamp. We want to smash barriers between bureaucracy and the American people by delivering regulatory news straight to FreedomWorks activists. Check back in two weeks for the next edition.

On June 23rd, the Illinois General Assembly passed a major Civil Asset Forfeiture reform bill, which is currently awaiting Governor Bruce Rauner’s signature. If vetoed, the bill is still likely to be enacted since it received full support in the senate and all but one vote in the house which is more than enough for a veto override. HB 303, if passed, would effectively reform the state’s Civil Asset Forfeiture laws by shifting the burden of proof from the citizens to the government and instead increasing it “from probable cause to a preponderance of evidence.”

In a recent statement on behalf of the US Supreme Court, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas critiqued civil asset forfeiture and the abuses it has seen over the past several issues. In that statement, Justice Thomas said, “This system-where police can seize property with limited judicial oversight and retain it for their own use-has led to egregious and well-chronicled abuses.” The statement comes at a time when civil asset forfeiture, or the lawful seizure of assets from individuals without due process, has gained much more attention in the modern day as calls for reform have increased.