Ameen Salaam v. Illinois, ex. rel. Kimberly Foxx

When a court has in rem jurisdiction can it enter a final judgment without the notice required by the due process clause.

Whether a judgment that is void because the notice necessitated by the due process clause was not provided can become unassailable by the passage of time. The State of Illinois forfeited money in a civil judicial forfeiture proceeding, without notice to claimant Salaam. Denying relief, the Illinois Supreme Court ruled “even if that lack of notice amounted to a due process violation, [it] could not deprive the circuit court of its jurisdiction” to enter a final judgment of forfeiture. People ex rel. Alvarez v. $59, 914, 2022 IL 126927, ¶ 23. Appendix A. It explained the court’s jurisdiction was in rem and judgment was “voidable” within two years, but time rendered the due process violation moot. The decision of the Illinois Supreme Court allows a final judgment without notice. More than a century ago, this Court wrote, “Much more so will equity enjoin parties from enforcing those obtained without service. For in such a case the person named as defendant ‘can no more be regarded as a party than any other member of the community.’ Such judgments are not erroneous and not voidable, but, upon principles of natural justice, and under the due process clause of the 14th Amendment, are absolutely void.” Simon v. S. R. Co., 236 U.S. 115, 122, 35 S. Ct. 255, 256, 59 L. Ed. 492 (1915).