United States v. Ursery (95-345), 518 U.S. 267 (1996).
Opinion
[ Rehnquist ]		Other
[ Stevens ]		Concurrence
[ Kennedy ]		Syllabus
Concurrence
[ Scalia ]
HTML version
WordPerfect version		HTML version
WordPerfect version		HTML version
WordPerfect version		HTML version
WordPerfect version		HTML version
WordPerfect version

Nos. 95-345 and 95-346

UNITED STATES, PETITIONER 95-345 v. GUY JEROME URSERY

on writ of certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the sixth circuit

UNITED STATES, PETITIONER 95-346 v. $405,089.23 IN UNITED STATES CURRENCY et al.

on writ of certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the ninth circuit

[June 24, 1996]

Justice Scalia, with whom Justice Thomas joins, concurring in the judgment.

In my view, the Double Jeopardy Clause prohibits successive prosecution, not successive punishment. See Department of Revenue of Mont. v. Kurth Ranch, 511 U. S. ___, ___ (1994) (slip op., at 1-4, 8) (Scalia, J., dissenting). Civil forfeiture proceedings of the sort at issue here are not criminal prosecutions, even under the standard of Kennedy v. Mendoza Martinez, 372 U.S. 144, 164 (1963), and United States v. Ward, 448 U.S. 242, 248-251 (1980).