author: Justice White

text:
    SOLDAL et ux. v. COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS, et al.
    No. 91-6516.
    Argued October 5, 1992
    Decided December 8, 1992

      White, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.

      John L. Stainthorp argued the cause and filed briefs for petitioners.

      Kenneth L. Gillis argued the cause for respondents. With him on the brief were Jack O’Malley, Renee G. Gold-farb, and Kenneth T McCurry

        James D. Holzhauer, Timothy S. Bishop, John A. Powell, Steven R. Shapiro, Harvey M. Grossman, and Alan K. Chen filed a brief for the American Civil Liberties Union et al. as amici curiae urging reversal.

        Richard Ruda, Carter G. Phillips, Mark D. Hopson, and Mark E. Had-dad filed a brief for the National League of Cities et al. as amici curiae urging affirmance.

   Justice White

delivered the opinion of the Court.

HH

Edward Soldal and his family resided in their trailer home, which was located on a rented lot in the Willoway Terrace mobile home park in Elk Grove, Illinois. In May 1987, Terrace Properties, the owner of the park, and Margaret Hale, its manager, filed an eviction proceeding against the Soldáis in an Illinois state court. Under the Illinois Forcible Entry and Detainer Act, Ill. Rev. Stat., ch.. 110, ¶ 9-101 et seq. (1991), a tenant cannot be dispossessed absent a judgment of eviction. The suit was dismissed on June 2, 1987. A few months later, in August 1987, the owner brought a second proceeding of eviction, claiming nonpayment of rent. The case was set for trial on September 22, 1987.

Rather than await judgment in their favor, Terrace Properties and Hale, contrary to Illinois law, chose to evict the Soldáis forcibly two weeks prior to the scheduled hearing. On September 4, Hale notified the Cook County’s Sheriff’s Department that she was going to remove the trailer home from the park, and requested the presence of sheriff deputies to forestall any possible resistance. Later that day, two Terrace Properties employees arrived at the Soldáis’ home accompanied by Cook County Deputy Sheriff O’Neil. The employees proceeded to wrench the sewer and water connections off the side of the trailer home, disconnect the phone, tear off the trailer’s canopy and skirting, and hook the home to a tractor. Meanwhile, O’Neil explained to Edward Soldal that “ ‘he was there to see that [Soldal] didn’t interfere with [Willoway’s] work.’” Brief for Petitioner 6.

By this time, two more deputy sheriffs had arrived at the scene and Soldal told them that he wished to file a complaint for criminal trespass. They referred him to Deputy Lieutenant Jones, who was in Hale’s office. Jones asked Soldal to wait outside while he remained closeted with Hale and other Terrace Properties employees for over 20 minutes. After talking to a district attorney and making Soldal wait another half hour, Jones told Soldal that he would not accept a complaint because “ ‘it was between the landlord and the tenant . . . [and] they were going to go ahead and continue to move out the trailer.’” Id., at 8. Throughout this period, the deputy sheriffs knew that Terrace Properties did not have an eviction order and that its actions were unlawful. Eventually, and in the presence of an additional two deputy sheriffs, the Willoway workers pulled the trailer free of its moorings and towed it onto the street. Later, it was hauled to a neighboring property.

On September 9, the state judge assigned to the pending eviction proceedings ruled that the eviction had been unauthorized and ordered Terrace Properties to return the Sol-dais’ home to the lot. The home, however, was badly damaged. The Soldáis brought this action under 42 U. S. C. § 1983, alleging a violation of their rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. They claimed that Terrace Properties and Hale had conspired with Cook County deputy sheriffs to unreasonably seize and remove the Soldáis’ trailer home. The District Judge granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment on the grounds that the Soldáis had failed to adduce any evidence to support their conspiracy theory and, therefore, the existence of state action necessary under § 1983.

The Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, construing the facts in petitioners’ favor, accepted their contention that there was state action. However, it went on to hold that the removal of the Soldáis’ trailer did not constitute a seizure for purposes of the Fourth Amendment or a deprivation of due process for purposes of the Fourteenth.

On rehearing, a majority of the Seventh Circuit, sitting en banc, reaffirmed the panel decision. Acknowledging that what had occurred was a “seizure” in the literal sense of the word, the court reasoned that, because it was not made in the course of public law enforcement and because it did not invade the Soldáis’ privacy, it was not a seizure as contemplated by the Fourth Amendment. 942 F. 2d 1073, 1076 (1991). Interpreting prior cases of this Court, the Seventh Circuit concluded that, absent interference with privacy or liberty, a “pure deprivation of property” is not cognizable under the Fourth Amendment. Id., at 1078-1079. Rather, petitioners’ property interests were protected only by the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.

We granted certiorari to consider whether the seizure and removal of the Soldáis’ trailer home implicated their Fourth Amendment rights, 603 U. S. 918 (1992), and now reverse.

II

The Fourth Amendment, made applicable to the States by the Fourteenth, Ker v. California, 374 U. S. 23, 30 (1963), provides in pertinent part that the “right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated . . .

A “seizure” of property, we have explained, occurs when “there is some meaningful interference with an individual’s possessory interests in that property.” United States v. Jacobsen, 466 U. S. 109, 113 (1984). In addition, we have emphasized that “at the very core” of the Fourth Amendment “stands the right of a man to retreat into his own home.” Silverman v. United States, 366 U. S. 605, 611 (1961). See also. Oliver v. United States, 466 U. S. 170, 178-179 (1984); Wyman v. James, 400 U. S. 309, 316 (1971); Payton v. New York, 446 U. S. 573, 601 (1980).

As a result of the state action in this case, the Soldáis’ domicile was not only seized, it literally was carried away, giving new meaning to the term “mobile home.” We fail to see how being unceremoniously dispossessed of one’s home in the manner alleged to have occurred here can be viewed as anything but a seizure invoking the protection of the Fourth Amendment. Whether the Amendment was in fact violated is, of course, a different question that requires determining if the seizure was reasonable. That inquiry entails the weighing of various factors and is not before us. •

The Court of Appeals recognized that there had been a seizure, but concluded that it was a seizure only in a “technical” sense, not within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. This conclusion followed from a narrow reading of the Amendment, which the court construed to safeguard only privacy and liberty interests while leaving unprotected possessory interests where neither privacy nor liberty was at stake. Otherwise, the court said,

“a constitutional provision enacted two centuries ago [would] make every repossession and eviction with police assistance actionable under — of all things — the Fourth Amendments which] would both trivialize the amendment and gratuitously shift a large body of routine commercial litigation from the state courts to the federal courts. That trivializing, this shift, can be prevented by recognizing the difference between posses-sory and privacy interests.” 942 F. 2d, at 1077.

Because the officers had not entered Soldal’s house, rummaged through his possessions, or, in the Court of Appeals’ view, interfered with his liberty in the course of the eviction, the Fourth Amendment offered no protection against the “grave deprivation” of property that had occurred. Ibid.

We do not agree with this interpretation of the Fourth Amendment. The Amendment protects the people from unreasonable searches and seizures of “their persons, houses, papers, and effects.” This language surely cuts.against the novel holding below, and our cases unmistakably hold that the Amendment protects property as well as privacy. This much was made clear in Jacobsen, supra, where we explained that the first Clause of the Fourth Amendment

“protects two types of expectations, one involving ‘searches,’ the other ‘seizures.’ A ‘search’ occurs when an expectation of privacy that society is prepared to consider reasonable is infringed. A ‘seizure’ of property occurs where there is some meaningful interference with an individual’s possessory interests in that property.” 466 U. S., at 113 (footnote omitted).

See also id., at 120; Horton v. California, 496 U. S. 128, 183 (1990); Arizona v. Hicks, 480 U. S. 321, 328 (1987); Maryland v. Macon, 472 U. S. 463, 469 (1985); Texas v. Brown, 460 U. S. 730, 747-748 (1983) (Stevens, J., concurring in judgment); United States v. Salvucci, 448 U. S. 83, 91, n. 6 (1980). Thus, having concluded that chemical testing of powder found in a package did not compromise its owner’s privacy, the Court in Jacobsen did not put an end to its inquiry, as would be required under the view adopted by the Court of Appeals and advocated by respondents. Instead, adhering to the teachings of United States v. Place, 462 U. S. 696 (1983), it went on to determine whether the invasion of the owners’ “possessory interests” occasioned by the destruction of the powder was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment. Jacobsen, supra, at 124-125. In Place, although we found that subjecting luggage to a “dog sniff” did not constitute a search for Fourth Amendment purposes because it did not compromise any privacy interest, taking custody of Place’s suitcase was deemed an unlawful seizure for it unreasonably infringed “the suspect’s possessory interest in his luggage.” 462 U. S., at 708. Although lacking a privacy component, the property rights in both instances nonetheless were not disregarded, but rather were afforded Fourth Amendment protection.

Respondents rely principally on precedents such as Katz v. United States, 389 U. S. 347 (1967), Warden, Maryland Penitentiary v. Hayden, 387 U. S. 294 (1967), and Cardwell v. Lewis, 417 U. S. 583 (1974), to demonstrate that the Fourth Amendment is only marginally concerned with property rights. But the message of those cases is that property rights are not the sole measure of Fourth Amendment violations. The Warden opinion thus observed, citing Jones v. United States, 362 U. S. 257 (1960), and Silverman v. United States, 365 U. S. 505 (1961), that the “principal” object of the Amendment is the protection of privacy rather than property and that “this shift in emphasis from property to privacy has come about through a subtle interplay of substantive and procedural reform.” 387 U. S., at 304. There was no suggestion that this shift in emphasis had snuffed out the previously recognized protection for property under the Fourth Amendment. Katz, in declaring violative of the Fourth Amendment the unwarranted overhearing of a telephone booth conversation, effectively ended any lingering notions that the protection of privacy depended on trespass into a protected area. In the course of its decision, the Katz Court stated that the Fourth Amendment can neither be translated into a provision dealing with constitutionally protected areas nor. into a general constitutional right to privacy. The Amendment, the Court said, protects individual privacy against certain kinds of governmental intrusion, “but its protections go further, and often have nothing to do with privacy at all.” 389 U. S., at 350.

As for Cardwell, a plurality of this Court held in that case that the Fourth Amendment did not bar the use in evidence of paint scrapings taken from and tire treads observed on the defendant’s automobile, which had been seized in a parking lot and towed to a police lockup. Gathering this evidence was not deemed to be a search, for nothing from the interior of the car and “no personal effects, which the Fourth Amendment traditionally has been deemed to protect” were searched or seized. 417 U. S., at 591 (opinion of Blackmun, J.). No meaningful privacy rights were invaded. But this left the argument, pressed by the dissent, that the evidence gathered was the product of a warrantless and hence illegal seizure of the car from the parking lot where the defendant had left it. However, the plurality was of the view that, because under the circumstances of the case there was probable cause to seize the car as an instrumentality of the crime, Fourth Amendment precedent permitted the seizure without a warrant. Id., at 593. Thus, both the plurality and dissenting Justices considered the defendant’s auto deserving of Fourth Amendment protection even though privacy interests were not at stake. They differed only in the degree of protection that the Amendment demanded.

The Court of Appeals appeared to find more specific support for confining the protection of the Fourth Amendment to privacy interests in our decision in Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U. S. 517 (1984). There, a state prison inmate sued, claiming that prison guards had entered his cell without consent and had seized and destroyed some of his personal effects. We ruled that an inmate, because of his status, enjoyed neither a right to privacy in his cell nor protection against unreasonable seizures of his personal effects. Id., at 526-528, and n. 8; id., at 538 (O’Connor, J., concurring). Whatever else the case held, it is of limited usefulness outside the prison context with respect to the coverage of the Fourth Amendment.

We thus are unconvinced that any of the Court’s prior cases supports the view that the Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable seizures of property only where privacy or liberty is also implicated. What is more, our “plain view” decisions make untenable such a construction of the Amendment. Suppose, for example, that police officers lawfully enter a house, by either complying with the warrant requirement or satisfying one of its recognized exceptions— e. g., through a valid consent or a showing of exigent circumstances. If they come across some item in plain view and seize it, no invasion of personal privacy has occurred. Horton, 496 U. S., at 133-134; Brown, supra, at 739 (opinion of Rehnquist, J.). If the boundaries of the Fourth Amendment were defined exclusively by rights of privacy, “plain view” seizures would not implicate that constitutional provision at all. Yet, far from being automatically upheld, “plain view” seizures have been scrupulously subjected to Fourth Amendment inquiry. Thus, in the absence of consent or a warrant permitting the seizure of the items in question, such seizures can be justified only if they meet the probable-cause standard, Arizona v. Hicks, 480 U. S. 321, 326-327 (1987), and if they are unaccompanied by unlawful trespass, Horton, 496 U. S., at 136-137. That is because, the absence of a privacy interest notwithstanding, “[a] seizure of the article ... would obviously invade the owner’s possessory interest.” Id., at 134; see also Brown, 460 U. S., at 739 (opinion of Rehnquist, J.). The plain-view doctrine “merely reflects an application of the Fourth Amendment’s central requirement of reasonableness to the law governing seizures of property.” Ibid.; Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U. S. 443, 468 (1971); id., at 516 (White, J., concurring and dissenting).

The Court of Appeals understandably found it necessary to reconcile its holding with our recognition in the plain-view cases that the Fourth Amendment protects property as such. In so doing, the court did not distinguish this case on the ground that the seizure of the Soldáis’ home took place in a noncriminal context. Indeed, it acknowledged what is evident from our precedents — that the Amendment’s protection applies in the civil context as well. See O’Connor v. Ortega, 480 U. S. 709 (1987); New Jersey v. T. L. O., 469 U. S. 325, 334-335 (1985); Michigan v. Tyler, 436 U. S. 499, 504-506 (1978); Marshall v. Barlow’s, Inc., 436 U. S. 307, 312-313 (1978); Camara v. Municipal Court of San Francisco, 387 U. S. 523, 528 (1967).

Nor did the Court of Appeals suggest that the Fourth Amendment applied exclusively to law enforcement activities. It observed, for example, that the Amendment’s protection would be triggered “by a search or other entry into the home incident to an eviction or repossession,” 942 F. 2d, at 1077. Instead, the court sought to explain why the Fourth Amendment protects against seizures of property in the plain-view context, but not in this case, as follows:

“[S]eizures made in the course of investigations by police or other law enforcement officers are almost always, as' in the plain view cases, the culmination of searches. The police search in order to seize, and it is the search and ensuing seizure that the Fourth Amendment by its reference to ‘searches and seizures’ seeks to regulate. Seizure means one thing when it is the outcome of a search; it may mean something else when it stands apart from a search or any other investigative activity. The Fourth Amendment may still nominally apply, but, precisely because there is no invasion of privacy, the usual rules do not apply.” Id., at 1079 (emphasis in original).

We have difficulty with this passage. The court seemingly construes the Amendment to protect only against seizures that are the outcome of a search. But our cases are to the contrary and hold that seizures of property are subject to Fourth Amendment scrutiny even though no search within the meaning of the Amendment has taken place. See, e. g., Jacobsen, 466 U. S., at 120-125; Place, 462 U. S., at 706-707; Cardwell, 417 U. S., at 588-589. More generally, an officer who happens to come across an individual’s property in a public area could seize it only if Fourth Amendment standards are satisfied — for example, if the items are evidence of a crime or contraband. Cf. Payton v. New York, 445 U. S., at 587. We are also puzzled by the last sentence of the excerpt, where the court announces that the “usual rules” of the Fourth Amendment are inapplicable if the seizure is not the result of a search or any other investigative activity “precisely because there is no invasion of privacy.” For the plain-view cases clearly state that, notwithstanding the absence of any interference with privacy, seizures of effects that are not authorized by a warrant are reasonable only because there is probable cause to associate the property with criminal activity. The seizure of the weapons in Horton, for example, occurred in the midst of a search, yet we emphasized that it did not “involve any invasion of privacy.” 496 U. S., at 133. In short, our statement that such seizures must satisfy the Fourth Amendment and will be deemed reasonable only if the item’s incriminating character is “immediately apparent,” id., at 136-137, is at odds with the Court of Appeals’ approach.

The Court of Appeals’ effort is both interesting and creative, but at bottom it simply reasserts the earlier thesis that the Fourth Amendment protects privacy but not property. We remain unconvinced and see no justification for departing from our prior cases. In our view, the reason why an officer might enter a house or effectuate a seizure is wholly irrelevant to the threshold question whether the Amendment applies. What matters is the intrusion on the people’s security from governmental interference. Therefore, the right against unreasonable seizures would be no less transgressed if the seizure of the house was undertaken to collect evidence, verify compliance with a housing regulation, effect an eviction by the police, or on a whim, for no reason at all. As we have observed on more than one occasion, it would be “anomalous to say that the individual and his private property are fully protected by the Fourth Amendment only when the individual is suspected of criminal behavior.” Camara, 387 U. S., at 530; see also O’Connor, 480 U. S., at 715; T. L. O., 469 U. S., at 335.

The Court of Appeals also stated that even if, contrary to its previous rulings, “there is some element or tincture of a Fourth Amendment seizure, it cannot carry the day for the Soldáis.” 942 F. 2d, at 1080. Relying on our decision in Graham v. Connor, 490 U. S. 386 (1989), the court reasoned that it should look at the “dominant character of the conduct challenged in a section 1983 case [to] determine the constitutional standard under which it is evaluated.” 942 F. 2d, at 1080. Believing that the Soldáis' claim was more akin to a challenge against the deprivation of property without due process of law than against an unreasonable seizure, the court concluded that they should not be allowed to bring their suit under the guise of the Fourth Amendment.

But we see no basis for doling out constitutional protections in such fashion. Certain wrongs affect more than a single right and, accordingly, can implicate more than one of the Constitution’s commands. Where such multiple violations are alleged, we are not in the habit of identifying as a preliminary matter the claim’s “dominant” character. Rather, we examine each constitutional provision in turn. See, e. g., Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U. S. 517 (1984) (Fourth Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause); Ingraham v. Wright, 430 U. S. 651 (1977) (Eighth Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause). Graham is not to the contrary. Its holding was that claims of excessive use of force should be analyzed under the Fourth Amendment’s reasonableness standard, rather than the Fourteenth Amendment’s substantive due process test. We were guided by the fact that, in that case, both provisions targeted the same sort of governmental conduct and, as a result, we chose the more “explicit textual source of constitutional protection” over the “more generalized notion of ‘substantive due process.’” 490 U. S., at 394-395. Surely, Graham does not bar resort in this case to the Fourth Amendment’s specific protection for “houses, papers, and effects” rather than the general protection of property in the Due Process Clause.

III

Respondents are fearful, as was the Court of Appeals, that applying the Fourth Amendment in this context inevitably will carry it into territory unknown and unforeseen: routine repossessions, negligent actions of public employees that interfere with individuals’ right to enjoy their homes, and the like, thereby federalizing areas of law traditionally the concern of the States. For several reasons, we think the risk is exaggerated. To begin, our decision will have no impact on activities such as repossessions or attachments if they involve entry into the home, intrusion on individuals’ privacy, or interference with their liberty, because they would implicate the Fourth Amendment even on the Court of Appeals’ own terms. This was true of the Tenth Circuit’s decision in Specht with which, as we previously noted, the Court of Appeals expressed agreement.

More significantly, “reasonableness is still the ultimate standard” under the Fourth Amendment, Camara, supra, at 539, which means that numerous seizures of this type will survive constitutional scrutiny. As is true in other circumstances, the reasonableness determination will reflect a “careful balancing of governmental and private interests.” T. L. O., supra, at 341. Assuming, for example, that the officers were acting pursuant to a court order, as in Specht v. Jensen, 832 F. 2d 1516 (CA10 1987), or Fuentes v. Shevin, 407 U. S. 67 (1972), and as often would be the case, a showing of unreasonableness on these facts would be a laborious task indeed. Cf. Simms v. Slacum, 3 Cranch 300, 301 (1806). Hence, while there is no guarantee against the filing of frivolous suits, had the ejection in this case properly awaited the state court’s judgment it is quite unlikely that the federal court would have been bothered with a § 1983 action alleging a Fourth Amendment violation.

Moreover, we doubt that the police will often choose to further an enterprise knowing that it is contrary to the law, or proceed to seize property in the absence of objectively reasonable grounds for doing so. In short, our reaffirmance of Fourth Amendment principles today should not foment a wave of new litigation in the federal courts.

>

The complaint here alleges that respondents, acting under color of state law, dispossessed the Soldáis of their trailer home by physically tearing it from its foundation and towing it to another lot. Taking these allegations as true, this was no “garden-variety” landlord-tenant or commercial dispute. The facts alleged suffice to constitute a “seizure” within the meaning of the . Fourth Amendment, for they plainly implicate the interests protected by that provision. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is, accordingly, reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

So ordered.

       Jones’ statement was prompted by a district attorney’s advice that no criminal charges could be brought because, under Illinois law, a criminal action cannot be used to determine the right of possession. See Ill. Rev. Stat., ch. 110, ¶ 9-101 et seq. (1991); People v. Evans, 163 Ill. App. 3d 561, 516 N. E. 2d 817 (1st Dist. 1987).

       The Soldáis ultimately were evicted per court order in December 1987.

       Title 42 U. S. C. § 1983 provides that:
      “Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom or usage, of any State . . . subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States ... to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress.”

       The court reiterated the panel’s conclusion that a conspiracy must be assumed on the state of the record and, therefore, that the case must be treated in its current posture “as if the deputy sheriffs themselves seized the trailer, disconnected it from the utilities, and towed it away.” 942 F. 2d 1073, 1076 (1991).

       The court noted that, in light of the existence of adequate judicial remedies under state law, a claim for deprivation of property without due process of law was unlikely to succeed. Id., at 1075-1076. See Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U. S. 527 (1981). In any event, the Soldáis did not claim a violation of their procedural rights. As noted, the Seventh Circuit also held that respondents had not violated the Soldáis’ substantive due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. Petitioners assert that this was error, but in view of our disposition of the case we need not address the question at this time.

       Under 42 U. S. C. § 1983, the Soldáis were required to establish that the respondents, acting under color of state law, deprived them of a constitutional right, in this instance, their Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment freedom from unreasonable seizures by the State. See Monroe v. Pape,
        366 U. S. 167, 184 (1961). Respondents request that we affirm on the ground that the Court of Appeals erred in holding that there was sufficient state action to support a § 1983 action. The alleged injury to the Soldáis, it is urged, was inflicted by private parties for whom the county is not responsible. Although respondents did not cross-petition, they are entitled to ask us to affirm on that ground if such action would not enlarge the judgment of the Court of Appeals in their favor. The Court of Appeals found that because the police prevented Soldal from using reasonable force to protect his home from private action that the officers knew was illegal, there was sufficient evidence of conspiracy between the private parties and the officers to foreclose summary judgment for respondents. We are not inclined to review that holding. See Adickes v. S. H. Kress & Co., 398 U. S. 144, 152-161 (1970).

       In holding that the Fourth Amendment’s reach extends to property as such, we are mindful that the Amendment does not protect possessory interests in all kinds of property. See, e. g., Oliver v. United States, 466 U. S. 170, 176-177 (1984). This case, however, concerns a house, which the Amendment’s language explicitly includes, as it does a person’s effects.

        Place also found that to detain luggage for 90 minutes was an unreasonable deprivation of the individual’s “liberty interest in proceeding with his itinerary,” which also is protected by the Fourth Amendment. 462 U. S., at 708-710.

       When “operational necessities” exist, seizures can be justified on less than probable cause. 480 U. S., at 327. That in no way affects our analysis, for even then it is clear that the Fourth Amendment applies. Ibid.; see also United States v. Place, 462 U. S. 696, 703 (1983).

       Of course, if the police officers’ presence in the home itself entailed a violation of the Fourth Amendment, no amount of probable cause to believe that an item in plain view constitutes incriminating evidence will justify its seizure. Horton, 496 U. S., at 136-137.

       It is true that Murray’s Lessee v. Hoboken Land & Improvement Co., 18 How. 272 (1856), cast some doubt on the applicability of the Amendment to noncriminal encounters such as this. Id., at 285. But cases since that time have shed a different light, making clear that Fourth Amendment guarantees are triggered by governmental searches and seizures “without regard to the use to which [houses, papers, and effects] are applied.” Warden, Maryland Penitentiary v. Hayden, 387 U. S. 294, 301 (1967). Murray’s Lessee’s broad statement that the Fourth Amendment “has no reference to civil proceedings for the recovery of debt” arguably only meant that the warrant requirement did not apply, as was suggested in G. M. Leasing Corp. v. United States, 429 U. S. 338, 352 (1977). Whatever its proper reading, we reaffirm today our basic understanding that the protection against unreasonable searches and seizures fully applies in the civil context.

       This was the view expressed by the Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit in Specht v. Jensen, 832 F. 2d 1516 (1987), remanded on unrelated grounds, 853 F. 2d 805 (1988) (en banc), with which the Seventh Circuit expressly agreed. 942 F. 2d, at 1076.

       The officers in these cases were engaged in law enforcement and were ■looking for something that was found and seized. In this broad sense the seizures were the result of “searches,” but not in the Fourth Amendment sense. That the Court of Appeals might have been suggesting that the plain-view cases are explainable because they almost always occur in the course of law enforcement activities receives some support from the penultimate sentence of the quoted passage, where the court states that the word “seizure” might lose its usual meaning “when it stands apart from a search or any other investigative activity.” Id., at 1079 (emphasis added). And, in the following paragraph, it observes that “[ojutside of the law enforcement area the Fourth Amendment retains its force as a protection against searches, because they invade privacy. That is why we decline to confine the amendment to the law enforcement setting.” Id., at 1079-1080. Even if the court meant that seizures of property in the course of law enforcement activities, whether civil or criminal, implicate interests safeguarded by the Fourth Amendment, but that pure property interests are unprotected in the non-law-enforcement setting, we are not in accord, as indicated in the body of this opinion.


source: Caselaw Access Project

author: Chief Justice Rehnquist

license: Public Domain

text:
    MISSISSIPPI et al. v. LOUISIANA et al.
    No. 91-1158.
    Argued November 9, 1992
    Decided December 14, 1992
    Rehnquist, C. J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.

      James W. McCartney argued the cause for petitioners. With him on the briefs were Robert R. Bailess, Charles Alan Wright, Mike Moore, Robert E. Sanders, and Richard H. Page.

      Gary L. Key ser, Assistant Attorney General of Louisiana, argued the cause for respondents. With him on the brief were Richard R Ieyoub, Attorney General of Louisiana, and E. Kay Kirkpatrick, Assistant Attorney General.
   Chief Justice Rehnquist

delivered the opinion of the Court.

This action was originally commenced by private plaintiffs suing other private defendants in the District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi to quiet title to certain land riparian to the Mississippi River. The State of Louisiana intervened in the action and filed a third-party complaint against the State of Mississippi seeking to determine the boundary between the two States in the vicinity of the disputed land. We hold that 28 U. S. C. § 1251(a), granting to this Court original and exclusive jurisdiction of all controversies between two States, deprived the District Court of jurisdiction of Louisiana’s third-party complaint against Mississippi.

The land in question lies along the west bank of the Mississippi River near Lake Providence, Louisiana. The private plaintiffs, known as the Houston Group, alleged that they own the land in fee simple as a result of a homestead patent issued by the United States in 1888 and a deed issued by Mississippi in 1933. Louisiana and the Lake Providence Port Commission intervened in the title dispute and filed a third-party complaint against Mississippi seeking a determination of the boundary between the States. Louisiana then sought leave to file a bill of complaint against Mississippi in this Court. Mississippi opposed the motion in view of the pendency of the District Court action, and also emphasized that the case was originally a dispute between private parties: “Houston brought the suit to establish the boundary line to their land. It is incidental that the boundary line is also alleged to be the State line.” App. to Pet. for Cert. 86a. We denied leave to file, Louisiana v. Mississippi, 488 U. S. 990 (1988).

The District Court thereafter found that the thalweg, frozen by an avulsive shift in the river, was to the west of the disputed land and thus placed it within Mississippi. Alternatively, the District Court concluded that the disputed land was part of Mississippi because “Louisiana has acquiesced in the exercise of the exclusive jurisdiction over the island by ... Mississippi.” App. to Pet. for Cert. 40a. Having found the land to be part of Mississippi, the District Court then considered the ownership question and quieted title in the Houston Group.

The Court of Appeals reversed, rejecting the District Court’s rulings both on the location of the thalweg and on acquiescence, Houston v. Thomas, 937 F. 2d 247 (CA5 1991). We granted certiorari on these two questions and on a third that we formulated: “Did the District Court properly assert jurisdiction over respondents’ third-party complaint against petitioner State of Mississippi?” 503 U. S. 935 (1992). We now reverse.

The constitutional and statutory provisions necessary to our decision are these:

Article III, § 2, of the Constitution:

“The judicial Power [of the United States] shall extend ... to Controversies between two or more States; ....
“In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction.”

Title 28 U. S. C. § 1331: “The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.”

Title 28 U. S. C. § 1251(a): “The Supreme Court shall have original and exclusive jurisdiction of all controversies between two or more States.”

Mississippi, even though its contentions as to the boundary between itself and Louisiana were rejected by the Court of Appeals, urges us to find that the District Court had jurisdiction of the third-party complaint that Louisiana brought against it. Mississippi argues that our refusal to allow Louisiana to file an original complaint to determine the boundary between the two States must, by implication, have indicated that the District Court was a proper forum for the resolution of that question. This is particularly true, Mississippi argues, since its opposition to Louisiana’s motion to file its complaint in this Court was premised in part on the contention that the boundary question could be determined in the then-pending action, between the private landowners in the District Court. Mississippi asserts that that court had jurisdiction by virtue of 28 U. S. C. § 1331, which confers jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under federal law on the. District Court.

If it were not for the existence of 28 U. S. C. § 1251(a), Mississippi’s arguments would be quite plausible. We have said more than once that our original jurisdiction should be exercised only “sparingly.” See Wyoming v. Oklahoma, 502 U. S. 437, 450 (1992); Maryland v. Louisiana, 451 U. S. 725, 739 (1981); Arizona v. New Mexico, 425 U. S. 794, 796 (1976). Indeed, Chief Justice Fuller wrote nearly a century ago that our original “jurisdiction is of so delicate and grave a character that it was not contemplated that it would be exercised save when the necessity was absolute.” Louisiana v. Texas, 176 U. S. 1, 15 (1900). Recognizing the “delicate and grave” character of our original jurisdiction, we have interpreted the Constitution and 28 U. S. C. § 1251(a) as making our original jurisdiction “obligatory only in appropriate cases,” Illinois v. City of Milwaukee, 406 U. S. 91, 93 (1972), and as providing us “with substantial discretion to make case-by-case judgments as to the practical necessity of an original forum in this Court,” Texas v. New Mexico, 462 U. S. 554, 570 (1983).

We first exercised this discretion not to accept original actions in cases within our nonexclusive original jurisdiction, such as actions by States against citizens of other States, see Ohio v. Wyandotte Chemicals Corp., 401 U. S. 493 (1971), and actions between the United States and a State, see United States v. Nevada, 412 U. S. 534 (1973). But we have since carried over its exercise to actions between two States, where our jurisdiction is exclusive. See Arizona v. New Mexico, supra; California v. West Virginia, 454 U. S. 1027 (1981); Texas v. New Mexico, supra. Determining whether a case is “appropriate” for our original jurisdiction involves an examination of two factors. First, we look to “the nature of the interest of the complaining State,” Massachusetts v. Missouri, 308 U. S. 1, 18 (1939), focusing on the “seriousness and dignity of the claim,” City of Milwaukee, supra, at 93. “The model case for invocation of this Court’s original jurisdiction is a dispute between States of such seriousness that it would amount to casus belli if the States were fully sovereign.” Texas v. New Mexico, supra, at 571, n. 18. Second, we explore the availability of an alternative forum in which the issue tendered can be resolved. City of Milwaukee, supra, at 93. In Arizona v. New Mexico, for example, we declined to exercise original jurisdiction of an action by Arizona against New Mexico challenging a New Mexico electricity tax because of a pending state-court action by three Arizona utilities challenging the same tax: “[W]e are persuaded that the pending state-court action provides an appropriate forum in which the issues tendered here may be litigated.” 425 U. S., at 797 (emphasis in original).

But Mississippi’s argument for jurisdiction in the District Court here founders on the uncompromising language of 28 U. S. C. § 1251(a), which gives to this Court “original and exclusive jurisdiction of all controversies between two or more States” (emphasis added). Though phrased in terms of a grant of jurisdiction to this Court, the description of our jurisdiction as “exclusive” necessarily denies jurisdiction of such cases to any other federal court. This follows from the plain meaning of “exclusive,” see Webster’s New International Dictionary 890 (2d ed. 1942) (“debar from possession”), and has been remarked upon by opinions in our original jurisdiction cases, e. g., California v. Arizona, 440 U. S. 59, 63 (1979) (“[A] district court could not hear [California’s] claims against Arizona, because this Court has exclusive jurisdiction over such claims”).

Because the District Court lacked jurisdiction over Louisiana’s third-party complaint against Mississippi, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed insofar as it purports to grant any relief to Louisiana against Mississippi. The District Court is conceded to have had jurisdiction over the claims of the private plaintiffs against the private defendants, and in deciding questions of private title to riparian property, it may be necessary to decide where the boundary lies between the two States. Adjudicating such a question in a dispute between private parties does not violate § 1251(a), because that section speaks not in terms of claims or issues, but in terms of parties. The States, of course, are not bound by any decision as to the boundary between them which was rendered in a lawsuit between private litigants. See Durfee v. Duke, 375 U. S. 106, 115 (1963).

Because both the District Court and the Court of Appeals in this case intermixed the questions of title to real property and of the location of the state boundary, we are not in a position to say whether on this record the claims of title may fairly be decided without additional proceedings in the District Court. We therefore reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals insofar as it adjudicated the complaint filed by Louisiana against Mississippi, with instructions that it direct the District Court to dismiss the complaint for want of jurisdiction. We remand the balance of the case to the Court of Appeals for the necessary inquiry as to whether further proceedings are required in order to adjudicate the claims of title in this action.

It is so ordered.

       Neither party disputes Congress’ authority to make our original jurisdiction exclusive in some cases and concurrent in others. This distinction has existed since the Judiciary Act of 1789, §13, 1 Stat. 80-81, and has. never been questioned by this Court, see Rhode Island v. Massachusetts, 12 Pet. 657, 722 (1838); Ames v. Kansas ex rel. Johnston, 111 U. S. 449, 469 (1884).

       Mississippi and Louisiana do not question the District Court’s jurisdiction over Louisiana’s intervention in the title dispute. Louisiana’s intervention is also unaffected by § 1251(a) because it does not seek relief against Mississippi.


author:
Justice Blackmun Chief Justice Rehnquist Justice White,
      Justice Stevens, Justice Thomas,

text:
    REPUBLIC NATIONAL BANK OF MIAMI v. UNITED STATES
    No. 91-767.
    Argued October 6, 1992
    Decided December 14, 1992
    Justice Blackmun delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Parts I, II, and IV, concluding that, in an in rem forfeiture action, the Court of Appeals is not divested of jurisdiction by the prevailing party’s transfer of the res from the district. The “settled” rule on which the Government relies — that jurisdiction over such a proceeding depends upon continued control of the res — does not exist. Rather, the applicable general principle is that jurisdiction, once vested, is not divested by a discontinuance of possession, although exceptions may exist where, for example, release of the res would render the judgment “useless” because the res could neither be delivered to the complainant nor restored to the claimant. See, e. g., United States v. The Little Charles, 26 F. Cas. 979. The Brig Ann, 9 Cranch 289, 290, distinguished. The fictions of in rem forfeiture were developed primarily to expand the reach of the courts and to furnish remedies for aggrieved parties, not to provide a prevailing party with a means of defeating its adversary’s claim for redress. Pp. 84-89, 92-93.

      The Chief Justice delivered the opinion of the Court in part, concluding that a judgment for petitioner in the underlying forfeiture action would not be rendered “useless” by the absence of a specific congressional appropriation authorizing the payment of funds to petitioner. Even if there exist circumstances where funds which have been deposited into the Treasury may be returned absent an appropriation, but cf. Knote v. United States, 95 U. S. 149, 154, it is unnecessary to plow that uncharted ground here. For together, 31 U. S. C. § 1304 — the general appropriation for the payment of judgments against the United States— and 28 U. S. C. §2465 — requiring the return of seized property upon entry of judgment for claimants in forfeiture proceedings — would authorize the return of funds in this case in the event petitioner were to prevail below. See Office of Personnel Management v. Richmond, 496 U.S. 414,432. Pp. 93-96.
    Blackmun, J., announced the judgment of the Court and delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Parts I, II, and IV, in which Rehnquist, C. J., and White, Stevens, O’Connor, Scalia, Kennedy, and Souter, JJ., joined, and an opinion with respect to Part III, in which Stevens and O’Connor, JJ., joined. Rehnquist, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court in part, as to which White, Scalia, Kennedy, Souter, and Thomas, JJ., joined, and an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment, in which White, Scalia, Kennedy, and Souter, JJ., joined, post, p. 93. White, J., filed a concurring opinion, post, p. 96. Stevens, J., post, p. 99, and Thomas, J., post, p. 99, filed opinions concurring in part and concurring in the judgment.

      Stanley A. Beiley argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the briefs were Robert M. Sondak and David S. Garbett.

      Robert A. Long, Jr., argued the cause for the United States. With him on the brief were Solicitor General Starr, Assistant Attorney General Mueller, Deputy Solicitor General Roberts, and Joseph Douglas Wilson.

   Justice Blackmun

announced the judgment of the Court and delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Parts I, II, and IV, and an opinion with respect to Part III .

The issue in this case is whether the Court of Appeals may continue to exercise jurisdiction in an in rem civil forfeiture proceeding after the res, then in the form of cash, is removed by the United States Marshal from the judicial district and deposited in the United States Treasury.

1 — I

In February 1988, the Government instituted an action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida seeking forfeiture of a specified single-family residence in Coral Gables. The complaint alleged that Indalecio Iglesias was the true owner of the property; that he had purchased it with proceeds of narcotics trafficking; and that the property was subject to forfeiture to the United States pursuant to § 511(a)(6) of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970, as amended, 92 Stat. 3777, 21 U. S. C. § 881(a)(6). A warrant for the arrest of the property was issued, and the United States Marshal seized it.

In response to the complaint, Thule Holding Corporation, a Panama corporation, filed a claim asserting that it was the owner of the res in question. Petitioner Republic National Bank of Miami (Bank) filed a claim asserting a lien interest of $800,000 in the property under a mortgage recorded in 1987. Thule subsequently withdrew its claim. At the request of the Government, petitioner Bank agreed to a sale of the property. With court approval, the residence was sold for $1,050,000. The sale proceeds were retained by the marshal pending disposition of the case. See App. 6, n. 2.

After a trial on the merits, the District Court entered judgment denying the Bank’s claim with prejudice and forfeiting the sale proceeds to the United States pursuant to § 881(a)(6). Id., at 25. The court found probable cause to believe that Iglesias had purchased the property and completed the construction of the residence thereon with drug profits. It went on to reject the Bank’s innocent-owner defense to forfeiture. United States v. One Single Family Residence Located at 6960 Miraflores Avenue, Coral Gables, Florida, 731 F. Supp. 1563 (SD Fla. 1990). Petitioner Bank filed a timely notice of appeal, but did not post a supersedeas bond or seek to stay the execution of the judgment.

Thereafter, at the request of the Government, the United States Marshal transferred the proceeds of the sale to the Assets Forfeiture Fund of the United States Treasury. The Government then moved to dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. App. 4.

The Court of Appeals granted the motion. 932 F. 2d 1433 (CA11 1991). Relying on its 6-to-5 en banc decision in United States v. One Lear Jet Aircraft, Serial No. 35A-280, Registration No. YN-BVO, 836 F. 2d 1571, cert. denied, 487 U. S. 1204 (1988), the court held that the removal of the proceeds of the sale of the residence terminated the District Court’s in rem jurisdiction. 932 F. 2d, at 1435-1436. The court also rejected petitioner Bank’s argument that the District Court had personal jurisdiction because the Government had served petitioner with the complaint of forfeiture. Id., at 1436-1437. Finally, the court ruled that the Government was not estopped from contesting the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals because of its agreement that the United States Marshal would retain the sale proceeds pending order of the District Court. Id., at 1437.

In view of inconsistency and apparent uncertainty among the Courts of Appeals, we granted certiorari. 502 U. S. 1090 (1992).

II

A civil forfeiture proceeding under §881 is an action in rem, “which shall conform as near as may be to proceedings in admiralty.” 28 U. S. C. § 2461(b). In arguing that the transfer of the res from the judicial district deprived the Court of Appeals of jurisdiction, the Government relies on what it describes as a settled admiralty principle: that jurisdiction over an in rem forfeiture proceeding depends upon continued control of the res. We, however, find no such established rule in our cases. Certainly, it long has been understood that a valid seizure of the res is a prerequisite to the initiation of an in rem civil forfeiture proceeding. United States v. One Assortment of 89 Firearms, 465 U. S. 354, 363 (1984); Taylor v. Carryl, 20 How. 583, 599 (1858); 1 S. Friedell, Benedict on Admiralty §222, p. 14-39 (7th ed. 1992); H. Hawes, The Law Relating to the Subject of Jurisdiction of Courts § 92 (1886). See also Supplemental Rules for Certain Admiralty and Maritime Claims C(2) and C(3). The bulk of the Government’s cases stands merely for this unexceptionable proposition, which comports with the fact that, in admiralty, the “seizure of the res, and the publication of the monition or invitation to appear, is regarded as equivalent to the particular service of process in the courts of law and equity.” Taylor v. Carryl, 20 How., at 599.

To the extent that there actually is a discernible rule on the need for continued presence of the res, we find it expressed in cases such as The Rio Grande, 23 Wall. 458 (1875), and United States v. The Little Charles, 26 F. Cas. 979 (No. 15,612) (CC Va. 1818). In the latter case, Chief Justice Marshall, sitting as Circuit Justice, explained that “continuance of possession” was not necessary to maintain jurisdiction over an in rem forfeiture action, citing the “general principle, that jurisdiction, once vested, is not divested, although a state of things should arrive in which original jurisdiction could not be exercised.” Id., at 982. The Chief Justice noted that in some cases there might be an exception to the rule, where the release of the property would render the judgment “useless” because “the thing could neither be delivered to the libellants, nor restored to the claimants.” Ibid. He explained, however, that this exception “will not apply to any case where the judgment will have any effect whatever.” Ibid. Similarly, in The Rio Grande, this Court held that improper release of a ship by a marshal did not divest the Circuit Court of jurisdiction. “We do not understand the law to be that an actual and continuous possession of the res is required to sustain the jurisdiction of the court. When the vessel was seized by the order of the court and brought within its control the jurisdiction was complete.” 23 Wall., at 463. The Court there emphasized the impropriety of the ship’s release. The Government now suggests that the case merely announced an “injustice” exception to the requirement of continuous control. But the question is one of jurisdiction, and we do not see why the means of the res’ removal should make a difference.

Only once, in The Brig Ann, 9 Cranch 289, 290 (1815), has this Court found that events subsequent to the initial seizure destroyed jurisdiction in an in rent forfeiture action. In that case, a brig was seized in Long Island Sound and brought into the port of New Haven, where the collector took possession of it as forfeited to the United States. Several days later, the collector gave written orders for the release of the brig and its cargo from the seizure. Before the ship could leave, however, the District Court issued an information, and the brig and cargo were taken by the marshal into his possession. This Court held that, because the attachment was voluntarily released before the libel was filed and allowed, the District Court had no jurisdiction. Writing for the Court, Justice Story explained that judicial cognizance of a forfeiture in rem requires

“a good subsisting seizure at the time when the libel or information is filed and allowed. If a seizure be completely and explicitly abandoned, and the property restored by the voluntary act of the party who has made the seizure, all rights under it are gone. Although judicial jurisdiction once attached, it is divested by the subsequent proceedings; and it can be revived only by a new seizure. It is, in this respect, like a case of capture, which, although well made, gives no authority to the prize Court to proceed to adjudication, if it be voluntarily abandoned before judicial proceedings are instituted.” Id., at 291 (emphasis added).

Fairly read, The Brig Ann simply restates the rule that the court must have actual or constructive control of the res when an in rem forfeiture suit is initiated. If the seizing party abandons the attachment prior to filing an action, it, in effect, has renounced its claim. The result is “to purge away all the prior rights acquired by the seizure,” ibid., and, unless a new seizure is made, the case may not commence. The Brig Ann stands for nothing more than this.

The rule invoked by the Government thus does not exist, and we see no reason why it should. The fictions of in rem forfeiture were developed primarily to expand the reach of the courts and to furnish remedies for aggrieved parties, see Continental Grain Co. v. Barge FBL-585, 364 U. S. 19, 23 (1960); Harmony v. United States, 2 How. 210, 233 (1844), not to provide a prevailing party with a means of defeating its adversary’s claim for redress. Of course, if a “defendant ship stealthily absconds from port and leaves the plaintiff with no res from which to collect,” One Lear Jet, 836 F. 2d, at 1579 (Vance, J., dissenting), a court might determine that a judgment would be “useless.” Cf. The Little Charles, 26 F. Cas., at 982. So, too, if the plaintiff abandons a seizure, a court will not proceed to adjudicate the case. These exceptions, however, are closely related to the traditional, theoretical concerns of jurisdiction: enforceability of judgments and fairness of notice to parties. See 1 R. Casad, Jurisdiction in Civil Actions § 1.02, pp. 1-13 to 1-14 (2d ed. 1991); cf. Miller v. United States, 11 Wall. 268, 294-295 (1871) (“Confessedly the object of the writ was to bring the property under the control of the court and keep it there, as well as to give notice to the world. These objects would have been fully accomplished if its direction had been nothing more than to hold the property subject to the order of the court, and to give notice”). Neither interest depends absolutely upon the continuous presence of the res in the district.

Stasis is not a general prerequisite to the maintenance of jurisdiction. Jurisdiction over the person survives a change in circumstances, Leman v. Krentler-Arnold Hinge Last Co., 284 U. S. 448, 454 (1932) (“[Ajfter a final decree a party cannot defeat the jurisdiction of the appellate tribunal by removing from the jurisdiction, as the proceedings on appeal are part of the cause,” citing Nations v. Johnson, 24 How. 195 (1861)), as does jurisdiction over the subject matter, Louisville, N. A. & C. R. Co. v. Louisville Trust Co., 174 U. S. 652, 566 (1899) (midsuit change in the citizenship of a party does not destroy diversity jurisdiction); St. Paul Mercury Indemnity Co. v. Red Cab Co., 303 U. S. 283, 289-290 (1938) (jurisdiction survives reduction of amount in controversy). Nothing in the nature of in rem jurisdiction suggests a reason to treat it differently.

If the conjured rule were genuine, we would have to decide whether it had outlived its usefulness, and whether, in any event, it could ever be used by a plaintiff — the instigator of the in rem action — to contest the appellate court’s jurisdiction. The rule’s illusory nature obviates the need for such inquiries, however, and a lack of justification undermines any argument for its creation. We agree with the late Judge Vance’s remark in One Lear Jet, 836 F. 2d, at 1577: “Although in some circumstances the law may require courts to depart from what seems to be fairness and common sense, such a departure in this case is unjustified and unsupported by the law of forfeiture and admiralty.” We have no cause to override common sense and fairness here. We hold that, in an in rem forfeiture action, the Court of Appeals is not divested of jurisdiction by the prevailing party’s transfer of the res from the district.

hH HH HH

The Government contends, however, that this res no longer can be reached, because, having been deposited in the United States Treasury, it may be released only by congressional appropriation. If so, the case is moot, or, viewed another way, it falls into the “useless judgment” exception noted above, to appellate in rent jurisdiction.

The Appropriations Clause, U. S. Const., Art. I, § 9, cl. 7, provides: “No money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law.” In Knote v. United States, 95 U. S. 149 (1877), this Court held that the President could not order the Treasury to repay the proceeds from the sale of property forfeited by a convicted traitor who had been pardoned. But the Government — implicitly in its brief and explicitly at oral argument, see Tr. of Oral Arg. 37-39 — now goes further, maintaining that, absent an appropriation, any funds that find their way into a Treasury account must remain there, regardless of their origin or ownership. Such a rule would lead to seemingly bizarre results. The Ninth Circuit recently observed: “If, for example, an agent of the United States had scooped up the cash in dispute and, without waiting for a judicial order, had run to the nearest outpost of the Treasury and deposited the money ... it would be absurd to say that only an act of Congress could restore the purloined cash to the court.” United States v. Ten Thousand Dollars ($10,000.00) in United States Currency, 860 F. 2d 1511, 1514 (1988). Yet that absurdity appears to be the logical consequence of the Government’s position.

Perhaps it is not so absurd. In some instances where a private party pays money to a federal agency and is later deemed entitled to a refund, an appropriation has been assumed to be necessary to obtain the money. See 55 Comp. Gen. 625 (1976); United States General Accounting Office, Principles of Federal Appropriations Law 5-80 to 5-81 (1982). Congress, therefore, has passed a permanent indefinite appropriation for “ ‘Refund of Moneys Erroneously Received and Covered’ and other collections erroneously deposited that are not properly chargeable to another appropriation.” 31 U. S. C. § 1322(b)(2). This appropriation has been interpreted to authorize, for example, the refund of charges assessed to investment advisers by the Securities and Exchange Commission and deposited in the Treasury, after those charges were held to be erroneous in light of decisions of this Court. See 55 Comp. Gen. 243 (1975); see also National Presto Industries, Inc. v. United States, 219 Ct. Cl. 626, 630 (1979) (suggesting that prior version of § 1322(b)(2) authorized refund of sum deposited in Treasury during litigation). Section 1322(b)(2) arguably applies here.

Petitioner offers a different suggestion. It identifies 28 U. S. C. § 2465 as an appropriation. That statute states: “Upon the entry of judgment for the claimant in any proceeding to condemn or forfeit property seized under any Act of Congress, such property shall be returned forthwith to the claimant or his agent.” That is hardly standard language of appropriation. Cf. 31 U. S. C. § 1301(d). Yet I have difficulty imagining how an “appropriation” of funds determined on appeal not to belong to the United States could ever be more specific.

In part for that reason, however, I believe that a formal appropriation is not required in these circumstances. The Appropriations Clause governs only the disposition of money that belongs to the United States. The Clause “assurefs] that public funds will be spent according to the letter of the difficult judgments reached by Congress.” Office of Personnel Management v. Richmond, 496 U. S. 414, 428 (1990) (emphasis added); see also Stith, Congress’ Power of the Purse, 97 Yale L. J. 1343, 1358, and n. 67 (1988) (Clause encompasses only funds that belong to the United States); 2 Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States § 1348 (3d ed. 1858) (object of the Clause “is to secure regularity, punctuality, and fidelity, in the disbursements of the public money” (emphasis added)). I do not believe that funds held in the Treasury during the course of an ongoing in rem forfeiture proceeding — the purpose of which, after all, is to determine the ownership of the res, see, e. g., The Propeller Commerce, 1 Black 574, 580-581 (1862); The Maggie Hammond, 9 Wall. 435, 456 (1870); Jennings v. Carson, 4 Cranch 2, 23 (1807) — can properly be considered public money. The Court in Tyler v. Defrees, 11 Wall. 331, 349 (1871), explained that once a valid seizure of forfeitable property has occurred and the court has notice of the fact, “[n]o change of the title or possession [can] be made, pending the judicial proceedings, which would defeat the final decree.”

Contrary to the Government’s broad submission here, the Comptroller General long has assumed that, in certain situations, an erroneous deposit of funds into a Treasury account can be corrected without a specific appropriation. See 53 Comp. Gen. 580 (1974); 45 Comp. Gen. 724 (1966); 3 Comp. Gen. 762 (1924); 12 Comp. Dec. 733, 735 (1906); Principles of Federal Appropriations Law, at 5-79 to 5-81. Most of these cases have arisen where money intended for one account was accidentally deposited in another. It would be unrealistic, for example, to require congressional authorization before a data processor who misplaces a decimal point can “undo” an inaccurate transfer of Treasury funds. The Government’s absolutist view of the scope of the Appropriations Clause is inconsistent with these commonsense understandings.

I would hold that the Constitution does not forbid the return without an appropriation of funds held in the Treasury during the course of an in rem forfeiture proceeding to the party determined to be their owner. Because the funds therefore could be disgorged if petitioner is adjudged to be their rightful owner, a judgment in petitioner’s favor would not be “useless.”

IV

In a civil forfeiture proceeding, where the Government has the power to confiscate private property on a showing of mere probable cause, the right to appeal is a crucial safeguard against abuse. No settled rule requires continuous control of the res for appellate jurisdiction in an in rem forfeiture proceeding. Nor does the Appropriations Clause place the money out of reach. Accordingly, we hold that the Court of Appeals did not lose jurisdiction when the funds were transferred from the Southern District of Florida to the Assets Forfeiture Fund of the United States Treasury. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

It is so ordered.

Chief Justice Rehnquist

delivered the opinion of the Court in part, concurred in part, and concurred in the judgment.

I join the Court’s judgment and Parts I, II, and IV of its opinion. I write separately, however, because I do not agree with the Appropriations Clause analysis set forth in Part III. Justice Blackmun “would hold that the Constitution does not forbid the return without an appropriation of funds held in the Treasury during the course of an in rem forfeiture proceeding to the party determined to be their owner.” Ante, at 92. Justice Blackmun reaches this result because he concludes that funds deposited in the Treasury in the course of a proceeding to determine their ownership are not “public money.” I have difficulty accepting the proposition that funds which have been deposited into the Treasury are not public money, regardless of whether the Government’s ownership of those funds is disputed. Part of my difficulty stems from the lack of any support in our cases for this theory.

In Knote v. United States, 95 U. S. 149, 154 (1877), we stated: “[I]f the proceeds have been paid into the treasury, the right to them has so far become vested in the United States that they can only be secured to the former owner of the property through an act of Congress. Moneys once in the treasury can only be withdrawn by an appropriation by law.” Knote is distinguishable in that the forfeiture proceeding in that case was final at the time the appropriations question arose. But the principle that once funds are deposited into the Treasury, they become public money — and thus may only be paid out pursuant to a statutory appropriation— would seem to transcend the facts of Knote. That there exists a specific appropriation for “ ‘Refund of Moneys Erroneously Received and Covered’ and other collections erroneously deposited that are not properly chargeable to another appropriation,” 31 U. S. C. § 1322(b)(2), supports this understanding.

Justice Blackmun relies principally on language from Tyler v. Defrees, 11 Wall. 331, 349 (1871), to the effect that once a seizure of forfeitable property has occurred, “[n]o change of the title or possession [can] be made, pending the judicial proceedings, which would defeat the final decree.” See ante, at 92. This language is dictum rendered in the course of deciding a dispute over the sufficiency of the marshal’s seizure of the property subject to forfeiture. But even if it were the holding of the case, it would have no application to the present case, because here there was a final decree entered by the District Court in favor of the Government. It is petitioner’s failure to post a bond or obtain a stay of that judgment which has brought the present controversy to this Court.

In any event, even if there are circumstances in which funds that have been deposited into the Treasury may be returned absent an appropriation, I believe it unnecessary to plow that uncharted ground here. The general appropriation for payment of judgments against the United States provides in part:

“(a) Necessary amounts are appropriated to pay final judgments, awards, compromise settlements, and interest and costs specified in the judgments or otherwise authorized by law when—
“(1) payment is not otherwise provided for;
“(2) payment is certified by the Comptroller General; and
“(3) the judgment, award, or settlement is payable—
“(A) under section 2414, 2517, 2672, or 2677 of title 28. .. .” 31 U. S. C. § 1304.

Title 28 U. S. C. § 2414, in turn, authorizes the payment of “final judgments rendered by a district court... against the United States.” Together, §§ 1304 and 2414 would seem to authorize the return of funds in this case in the event petitioner were to prevail in the underlying forfeiture action.

But further inquiry is required, for we have said that §1304 “does not create an all-purpose fund for judicial disbursement.... Rather, funds may be paid out only on the basis of a judgment based on a substantive right to compensation based on the express terms of a specific statute.” Office of Personnel Management v. Richmond, 496 U. S. 414, 432 (1990). The question, then, is whether petitioner would have a “substantive right to compensation” if it were to prevail in this forfeiture proceeding. I believe 28 U. S. C. § 2465 provides such a right here. That section provides: “Upon the entry of judgment for the claimant in any proceeding to . .. forfeit property seized under any Act of Congress, such property shall be returned forthwith to the claimant or his agent.” Although §2465 speaks of forfeitable “property” and not public money, the property subject to forfeiture in this case has been converted to proceeds now resting in the Assets Forfeiture Fund of the Treasury. I see no reason why § 2465 should not be construed as authorizing the return of proceeds in such a case. Therefore, I would hold that 31 U. S. C. § 1304, together with 28 U. S. C. § 2465, provide the requisite appropriation.

Because I believe there exists a specific appropriation authorizing the payment of funds in the event petitioner were to prevail in the underlying forfeiture action, I agree with Justice Blackmun that a judgment for petitioner below would not be “useless.” Accordingly, I concur in the judgment of the Court.

Justice White,

concurring.

I agree with Parts I, II, and IV of the Court’s opinion but would prefer not to address the Appropriations Clause issue.

As Justice Blackmun indicates, ante, at 89, the Government argues that because the Appropriations Clause bars reaching the funds transferred to the Treasury’s Assets Forfeiture Fund, the case is either moot or falls into the useless judgment exception to appellate in rem jurisdiction. I am surprised that the Government would take such a transparently fallacious position. The case is not moot and a ruling by the Court of Appeals would not be a useless judgment. Had the funds not been transferred to Washington, the Court of Appeals, if it thought the District Court had erred in rejecting the Bank’s innocent-owner defense, would have been free to reverse the lower court, direct that the Bank be paid out of the res, and to that extent rule against the United States’ forfeiture claim. The United States does not question this, for when the property was sold, the Government agreed to hold the proceeds pending resolution of the claims against the res.

The funds are, of course, no longer in Florida, but that fact, as the Court now holds, did not deprive the Court of Appeals of jurisdiction to reverse the District Court and direct entry of judgment against the United States for the amount of the Bank’s lien, nor did it prevent the Court of Appeals from declaring that the Bank was entitled to have its lien satisfied from the res and, therefore, that the Government had no legal entitlement to the proceeds from the sale of the house. The case is obviously not moot. Nor should the Government suggest that a final judgment against the United States by a court with jurisdiction to enter such a judgment is useless because the United States may refuse to pay it. Rather, it would be reasonable to assume that the United States obeys the law and pays its debts and that in most people’s minds a valid judgment against the Government for a certain sum of money would be worth that very amount. This is such a reasonable expectation that there is no need in this case to attempt to extract the transferred res from whatever fund in which it now is held.

There is nothing new about expecting governments to satisfy their obligations. Thus, in Steffel v. Thompson, 415 U. S. 452, 468-471 (1974), the Court discussed the comparative propriety of entering a declaratory judgment as opposed to an injunction. Describing the cases of Roe v. Wade, 410 U. S. 113 (1973), and Doe v. Bolton, 410 U. S. 179 (1973), the Court explained:

“In those two cases, we declined to decide whether the District Courts had properly denied to the federal plaintiffs, against whom no prosecutions were pending, in-junctive relief restraining enforcement of the Texas and Georgia criminal abortion statutes; instead, we affirmed the issuance of declaratory judgments of unconstitutionality, anticipating that these would be given effect by state authorities.” 415 U. S., at 469.

See also Roe, supra, at 166: “We find it unnecessary to decide whether the District Court erred in withholding injunctive relief, for we assume the Texas prosecutorial authorities will give full credence to this decision that the present criminal abortion statutes of that State are unconstitutional”; Bolton, supra, at 201 (same). More generally, it goes without saying that a creditor must first have judgment before he is entitled to collect from one who has disputed the debt, and it frequently happens that the losing debtor pays up without more. Perhaps, however, the judgment creditor will have collection problems, but that does not render his judgment a meaningless event.

For the same reasons, it is unnecessary for the Court at this point to construe the Appropriations Clause, either narrowly or broadly. Normally, we avoid deciding constitutional questions when it is reasonable to avoid or postpone them. Three Affiliated Tribes of Fort Berthold Reservation v. Wold Engineering, P. C., 467 U. S. 138, 157 (1984); Liverpool, New York & Philadelphia S. S. Co. v. Commissioners of Emigration, 113 U. S. 33, 39 (1885). It is apparent, moreover, that the Court has struggled to reach a satisfactory resolution of the Appropriations Clause issue. I would not anticipate that the United States would default and that the Bank would require the help of the Judiciary to collect the debt. I would leave it to the Executive Branch to determine in the first instance, when and if it suffers an adverse judgment, whether it would have authority under existing statutes to liquidate the judgment that might be rendered against it. It will be time enough to rule on the Appropriations Clause when and if the position taken by the Government requires it.

I bow, however, to the will of the Court to rule prematurely on the Appropriations Clause, and on that issue I agree with The Chief Justice and join his opinion.

Justice Stevens,

concurring in part and concurring in the judgment.

While I agree with Justice Blackmun’s analysis of the Government’s Appropriations Clause argument, and join his opinion in its entirety, I also agree with The Chief Justice that 31 U. S. C. § 1304, together with 28 U. S. C. §2465, provide a satisfactory alternative response. Moreover, like Justice White, and for the reasons stated in his separate opinion, I am surprised that the Government would make “such a transparently fallacious” argument in support of its unconscionable position in this case. See ante, at 96.

Justice Thomas,

concurring in part and concurring in the judgment.

I cannot join the Court’s discussion of jurisdiction because that discussion is unnecessary and may very well constitute an advisory opinion. In my view, we should determine the applicability of § 1521 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1992, 106 Stat. 4062. Effective October 28, 1992, § 1521 amended 28 U. S. C. § 1355 to provide that “[i]n any case in which a final order disposing of property in a civil forfeiture action or proceeding is appealed, removal of the property by the prevailing party shall not deprive the court of jurisdiction.” 106 Stat. 4062-4063. The clear import of the new law is to preserve the jurisdiction of a court of appeals in a civil forfeiture action where the res has been removed by the prevailing party — the very issue involved in this case. This law would appear by its plain terms to be dispositive of this case, thus rendering academic the discussion in Part II of the Court’s opinion.

The Court.mentions §1521 in a single footnote, stating simply that “we do not now interpret that statute or determine the issue of its retroactive application to the present case.” Ante, at 89, n. 5. As a general rule, of course, statutes affecting substantive rights or obligations are presumed to operate prospectively only. Bennett v. New Jersey, 470 U. S. 632, 639 (1985). “Thus, congressional enactments . . . will not be construed to have retroactive effect unless their language requires this result.” Bowen v. Georgetown Univ. Hospital, 488 U. S. 204, 208 (1988). But not every application of a new statute to a pending case will produce a “retroactive effect.” “[WJhether a particular application is retroactive” will “depen[d] upon what one considers to be the determinative event by which retroactivity or prospectivity is to be calculated.” Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corp. v. Bonjorno, 494 U. S. 827, 857, and n. 3 (1990) (Scalia, J., concurring) (emphasis in original).

In the case of newly enacted laws restricting or enlarging jurisdiction, one would think that the “determinative event” for retroactivity purposes would be the final termination of the litigation, since statutes affecting jurisdiction speak to the power of the court rather than to the rights or obligations of the parties. That conclusion is supported by longstanding precedent. We have always recognized that when jurisdiction is conferred by an Act of Congress and that Act is repealed, “the power to exercise such jurisdiction [is] withdrawn, and ... all pending actions f[a]ll, as the jurisdiction depend[s] entirely upon the act of Congress.” Assessors v. Osbornes, 9 Wall. 567, 575 (1870). “This rule — that, when a law conferring jurisdiction is repealed without any reservation as to pending cases, all cases fall with the law — has been adhered to consistently by this Court.” Bruner v. United States, 343 U. S. 112, 116-117 (1952). See id., at 117, n. 8 (citing cases). Moreover, we have specifically noted that “[t]his jurisdictional rule does not affect the general principle that a statute is not to be given retroactive effect unless such construction is required by explicit language or by necessary implication.” Ibid.

The same rule ordinarily mandates the application to pending eases of new laws enlarging jurisdiction. We so held in United States v. Alabama, 362 U. S. 602 (1960) (per curiam). There, the District Court had concluded that it was without jurisdiction to entertain a civil rights action brought by the United States against a State, and the Court of Appeals had affirmed. Id., at 603. While the case was pending before this Court, the President signed the Civil Rights Act of 1960, which authorized such actions. Relying on “familiar principles,” we held that “the case must be decided on the basis of law now controlling, and the provisions of [the new statute] are applicable to this litigation.” Id., at 604 (emphasis added) (citing cases). We therefore held that “the District Court has jurisdiction to entertain this action against the State,” and we remanded for further proceedings. Ibid. Similarly, in Andrus v. Charlestone Stone Products Co., 436 U. S. 604 (1978), we held that because the general federal-question statute had been amended in 1976 to eliminate the amount-in-controversy requirement for suits against the United States, “the fact that in 1973 respondent in its complaint did not allege $10,000 in controversy is now of no moment.” Id., at 608, n. 6 (emphasis added).

It could be argued that the language of § 1521 implies an earlier determinative event for retroactivity purposes — such as the removal of the res or the point when the final order disposing of the property “is appealed.” 106 Stat. 4062. I do not find these terms sufficiently clear to overcome the general rule that statutes altering jurisdiction are to be applied to pending cases; I would therefore decide this case on the basis of the new law. If the Court is plagued with doubts about the “retroactive application” of § 1521, ante, at 89, n. 5, the Court should, at a minimum, seek further briefing from the parties on this question before embarking on what appears to me to be an unnecessary excursion through the law of admiralty. There is no legitimate reason not to take the time to do so, for if the Government were to concede the new law’s applicability, the Court’s opinion would be advisory. I can, therefore, concur only in the Court’s judgment on the issue of jurisdiction.

I do, however, join the opinion of The ChieF Justice regarding the Appropriations Clause. Because the Court of Appeals retains continuing jurisdiction over this proceeding pursuant to § 1521, we cannot avoid addressing the Government’s arguments on this issue.

      Justice Stevens- and Justice O’Connor join this opinion in its entirety.

      Title 21 U. S. C. §881(a) reads in pertinent part:
      “The following shall be subject to forfeiture to the United States and no property right shall exist in them:
      “(6) All moneys, negotiable instruments, securities, or other things of value furnished or intended to be furnished by any person in exchange for a controlled substance in violation of this subchapter, all proceeds traceable to such an exchange, and all moneys, negotiable instruments, and securities used or intended to be used to facilitate any violation of this subchapter, except that no property shall be forfeited under this paragraph, to the extent of the interest of an owner, by reason of any act or omission established by that owner to have been committed or omitted without the knowledge or consent of that owner.”

       The Government also had argued that the “relation-back” doctrine precluded the Bank from raising an innocent-owner defense. See 731 F. Supp., at 1567. That issue is pending before this Court in No. 91-781, United States v. A Parcel of Land, Rumson, N. J, argued October 13, 1992.

       Compare United States v. One Lot of $25,721.00 in Currency, 938 F. 2d 1417 (CA1 1991); United States v. Aiello, 912 F. 2d 4 (CA2 1990), cert. denied, 498 U. S. 1048 (1991); United States v. $95,94-5.18, United States Currency, 913 F. 2d 1106 (CA4 1990), with United States v. Cadillac Sedan Deville, 1988, 933 F. 2d 1010 (CA6 1991) (appeal dism’d); United States v. Tit’s Cocktail Lounge, 873 F. 2d 141 (CA7 1989); United States v. $29,959.00 U S. Currency, 931 F. 2d 549 (CA9 1991); and the Court of Appeals’ opinion in the present case. Compare also United States v. $57,480.05 United States Currency and Other Coins, 722 F. 2d 1467 (CA9 1984), with United States v. Aiello, 912 F. 2d, at 7, and United States v. $95,945.18, United States Currency, 913 F. 2d, at 1110, n. 4.

       See also The Bolina, 3 F. Cas. 811, 813-814 (No. 1,608) (CC Mass. 1812) (Story, J., as Circuit Justice) (“[0]nce a vessel is libelled, then she is considered as in the custody of the law, and at the disposal of the court, and monitions may be issued to persons having the actual custody, to obey the injunctions of the court.... The district court of the United States derives its jurisdiction, not from any supposed possession of its officers, but from the act and place of seizure for the forfeiture. . . . And when once it has acquired a regular jurisdiction, I do not perceive how any subsequent irregularity would avoid it. It may render the ultimate decree ineffectual in certain events, but the regular results of the adjudication must remain”); 1 J. Wells, A Treatise on the Jurisdiction of Courts 276 (1880) (An actual or constructive seizure provides jurisdiction in an admiralty forfeiture action. "And, having once acquired regular jurisdiction, no subsequent irregularity can defeat it; or accident, as, for example, an accidental fire”).

       We note that on October 28, 1992, the President signed the Housing and Community Development Act of 1992, 106 Stat. 3672. Section 1521 of that Act (part of Title XV, entitled the Annunzio-Wylie Anti-Money Laundering Act) significantly amended 28 U. S. C. § 1356 to provide, among other things:
      “In any case in which a final order disposing of property in a civil forfeiture action or proceeding is appealed, removal of the property by the prevailing party shall not deprive the court of jurisdiction. • Upon motion of the appealing party, the district court or the court of appeals shall issue any order necessary to preserve the right of the appealing party to the full value of the property at issue, including a stay of the judgment of the district court pending appeal or requiring the prevailing party to post an appeal bond.” 106 Stat. 4062-4063.
      Needless to say, we do not now interpret that statute or determine the issue of its retroactive application to the present case.

       The Chief Justice, writing for the Court on this question, post, p. 93, would find an appropriation in the judgment fund, 31 U. S. C. § 1304. While plausible, his analysis is nevertheless problematic. The judgment fund is understood to apply to money judgments only. See, e. g., 58 Comp. Gen. 311 (1979). A final judgment in petitioner’s favor, however, would be in the nature of a financial “acquittal” — a simple ruling that the res is not forfeitable. Unless we were to require the bank to sue on its judgment of nonforfeitability for return of a sum equivalent to the retained res, The Chief Justice’s approach would seem to open the judgment fund to payment on nonmoney judgments. Moreover, as The Chief Justice acknowledges, see post, at 96, “the property subject to forfeiture in this case has been converted to proceeds now resting in the Assets Forfeiture Fund of the Treasury.” Title 28 U. S. C. §2465 can “be construed as authorizing the return of proceeds in such a case.” Post, at 96. But a payment from the judgment fund would not achieve that purpose. The res is not in the judgment fund. A payment from that account, while no doubt entirely acceptable to petitioner, would not be a return of the forfeited property, and at the end of the episode (although I have no doubt that the Comptroller would manage to balance the books) the Assets Forfeiture Fund would be some $800,000 richer, and the judgment fund correspondingly diminished.

      Justice White, Justice Scalia, Justice Kennedy, and Justice Souter join The Chief Justice’s opinion in its entirety. Justice Thomas joins this opinion only insofar as it disposes of the Appropriations Clause issue.

      As Justice Blackmun points out, where funds have been accidently deposited into the wrong account, the Comptroller General has assumed that a deposit may be corrected without an express appropriation. Ante, at 92. So, too, reasons Justice Blackmun, would it be “unrealistic .. . to require congressional authorization before a data processor who misplaces a decimal point can ‘undo’ an inaccurate transfer of Treasury funds.” Ibid. This may be so, but this is not our case. For the funds at issue were not accidently deposited into the Treasury, but rather intentionally transferred there once a valid judgment of forfeiture had been entered by the District Court.

      By letter dated October 30, 1992, the Government advised the Court of the enactment of the new law without taking a position on its applicability. On November 3 petitioner informed us by letter that in its view § 1521 applies and is controlling.