Using civil asset forfeiture, the government often seizes the property of completely innocent individuals. However, despite their innocence, these individuals often settle with the government and forfeit a portion of their property to government authorities. Why do they do this?

Since the first federal minimum wage went into effect in 1938, there have been people calling for an increase. Recently, there has been a push for a $15 hourly minimum wage at the federal level, as well as within various state and municipalities. Many of these calls for minimum wage hike have been led by, and funded by, unions. One in particular, Raise the Wage, called for a $15.25 minimum wage in Los Angeles and was funded by unions, including AFL-CIO.

Civil asset forfeiture is a unique area of law in which the government charges specific property of being guilty of wrongdoing, rather than a person. Perhaps because the property is accused of wrongdoing, and not the person, governments often place lower standards of proof needed to forfeit the property. The procedures used by the federal government and many state governments creates grave Fourth and Fifth Amendment concerns.

Last Friday, the DC Chapter of the Federalist Society hosted an event with guest Mark Brnovich, Attorney General of Arizona. A state’s AG office plays an important role in fighting federal overreach. Besides prosecuting criminal cases and defending state action, many AGs, at least the good ones, also sue the federal government.

Realizing spending was getting out of hand, Congress passed the 2011 Budget Control Act to cap spending on both defense and non-defense discretionary spending. However, Congress being Congress, they have become adept at finding ways to increase spending beyond the caps without technically going above the caps.

Sometimes a court reaches a decision that is great on the policy side, but appears to lack a basis in the law. Last week, in Comptroller v. Wynne, the Supreme Court made such a decision, continuing its practice of reading a negative Commerce Clause into our Constitution.

Although Governor Larry Hogan recently missed an incredible opportunity to reform Maryland’s awful civil asset forfeiture laws, he is looking to redeem himself with sentencing reform.

This week Governor Snyder announced his priorities to reform Michigan’s justice system in a speech made at Goodwill Industries, a company that helps train and employ former prisoners. The governor stressed his reforms are not about being weak on crime, rather, they are about creating a smart justice system.

Normally to sue in federal court, a plaintiff must establish standing. There are three requirements for establishing standing: (1) an injury in fact, (2) a causal relationship between the injury and the defendant’s conduct, and (3) the injury would be redressed by a favorable court ruling.

Realizing spending was getting out of hand, Congress passed the 2011 Budget Control Act to cap spending on both defense and nondefense discretionary spending. However, Congress being Congress, they have become adept at finding ways to increase spending beyond the caps without technically going above the caps.