In a jaw-dropping argument, the Department of Justice claims seizing $50,000 from a small business doesn’t violate property rights because money isn’t property.
—
Asalawyerwhosuesthegovernment,yougetusedtothedifferentkindsofargumentsthatgovernmentlawyersusetojustifyabusesofindividualrights—sweepingclaimsofgovernmentpower,bad-faithproceduralobstacles,andmore.
Thiswasanewone:TheU.S.DepartmentofJustice(DOJ)arguedthatconfiscating$50,000fromasmallbusinessdidnotinfringethebusiness’righttoprivatepropertybecausemoneyisnotproperty.
“Moneyisnotnecessarily‘property’forconstitutionalpurposes,”thegovernment’sbriefdeclared—puttingtheveryideaofpropertyinsquarequotes.Readingatmydesk,Ipracticallyfelloutofmychair.
TheDOJgavethreerationalesfortheargument,allpackedintoadoorstopperofafootnote:(1)thegovernmentcreatesmoney,soyoucan’townit;(2)thegovernmentcantaxyourmoney,soyoudon’townit;and(3)theConstitutionallowsthegovernmenttospendmoneyforthe“generalwelf