Whether the Due Process Clause requires a post-seizure probable-cause hearing prior to a statutory judicial-forfeiture proceeding

QUESTION PRESENTED In determining whether the Due Process Clause requires a state or local government to provide a post seizure probable cause hearing prior to a statutory judicial forfeiture proceeding and, if so, when such a hearing must take place, should district courts apply the “speedy trial” test employed in United States v. $8,850, 461 U.S. 555 (1983) and Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (1972), as held by the Eleventh Circuit or the three-part due process analysis set forth in Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976) as held by at least the Second, Fifth, Seventh, and Ninth Circuits. ii LIST OF PROCEEDINGS U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit No. 21-13805 Halima Tariffa Culley, on Behalf of Herself and Those Similarly Situated, v. Attorney General, State of Alabama, District Attorney of the 13th Judicial Circuit (Mobile County), City of Satsuma, Alabama, Lena Sutton, on Behalf of Herself and Those Similarly Situated as Described Below, PlaintiffAppellant, v. Leesburg, Alabama, Town of, DefendantAppellee, state of Alabama, Date of Final Opinion: July 11, 2022 Date of Rehearing Denial: August 30, 2022 USS. District Court, Southern District of Alabama Civ. Act. No. 1:19-cv-701-TFM-MU Halima Tariffa Culley, Plaintiff, v. Steve Marshall, in His Official Capacity as Attorney General of the State of Alabama, et al., Defendants. Date of Final Order: September 29, 2021 USS. District Court, Northern District of Alabama No. 4:20-cv-00091-ACA Lena Sutton, on Behalf of Herself and Those Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. Leesburg, Alabama, Et Al., Defendants. Date of Final Order: September 13, 2021