Berkeley, CA 94720
- Elbert Lin, Solicitor General of West Virginia
- Stephen McAllister, Solicitor General of Kansas
- Lawrence VanDyke, Solicitor General of Nevada
- Patrick Wyrick, Solicitor General of Oklahoma
Since the 1980s, the Department of Justice has utilized civil asset forfeiture as an effective tool to seize and forfeit billions of dollars-worth of assets allegedly connected to criminal activity as either an instrumentality or fruit of the crime. Since the inception of the asset forfeiture program, the Justice Department has shared much of these funds with state and local law enforcement authorities under its equitable sharing program, and many states have their own civil forfeiture laws and procedures. Critics of the program believe that civil asset forfeiture is fundamentally unfair, claiming, among other things, that it has the potential to warp law enforcement priorities, that the existing procedures are stacked against innocent property owners, and that it is simply wrong to seize someone’s property when that person has not been charged with, much less convicted of, a crime. Several proposals have been introduced in Congress to reform the civil asset forfeiture program, the Justice Department has announced that it is conducting an internal review of this program, and a number of states have recently undertaken a review of their own civil asset forfeiture laws.
On November 20, 2014, President Obama, with much attention from the media and the public, announced executive action on immigration. Our discussion will address the specifics of the President’s actions, and the legality of those actions. What exactly was said and done by the President, and how do his actions differ from acts he previously asserted were beyond his unilateral power? Has the President exceeded his constitutional authority to act? What happens next? Please join us over the lunch hour for a discussion with three experts in the field.
National Press Club