101 Houseco, LLC v. United States

This Court has declared that "[i]t is a violation of due process for a judgment to be binding on a litigant who was not a party or a privy and therefore has never had an opportunity to be heard." Parklane Hosiery Co. v. Shore, 439 U.S. 322, 327 n.7 (1979). The Second Circuit applied Parklane Hosiery to hold that a third-party claimant to property that has been forfeited from a criminal defendant must be permitted to challenge the underlying forfeiture order. The Fourth Circuit similarly recognized serious due process questions if a third-party claimant were barred from challenging the underlying forfeiture order. By contrast, the Fifth Circuit and the Ninth Circuit (in this case) hold that third-party claimants have no due process right to challenge the underlying criminal forfeiture order. The question presented is: Whether a third-party claimant holding title to property that has been ordered forfeited as part of a criminal defendant's punishment must be permitted, as a matter of due process, to challenge the underlying forfeiture order.