No, this is fair. The court said that both the buyer (Mitchell) and the seller (Grant Co.) have rights to the property until it's paid off. Louisiana's law is a good compromise because it has safeguards that protect the buyer: 1) A judge, not just an office worker, has to approve the seizure. 2) The seller has to provide specific facts under oath explaining why they need the property back. 3) The seller has to put up money (a bond) in case they were wrong. 4) The buyer gets an immediate chance to go to court and get his stuff back if the seller can't prove their case.

No, this is constitutional. The Court's previous decision in a similar case (Fuentes) was too strict by always requiring a hearing before a seizure. This Louisiana law is fair because the seller has to show good cause to a judge and the buyer gets a quick hearing right after the property is taken. It's okay for the Court to reconsider and change a past ruling when it comes to interpreting the Constitution.

Yes, this is totally unfair! Taking someone's property without any warning is a big deal. This case is just like the Fuentes case, where the Court correctly said you need a hearing first. The so-called 'safeguards' the other judges are talking about aren't enough to make a real difference. It seems like the Court is just flipping its decision because new judges were appointed, which is bad for the law and makes the Court look political.

It's okay because the law doesn't have to let Mitchell keep using the items while waiting for a final court decision. The rules in Louisiana are fair because they make sure both the company and Mitchell are protected while they figure out who should really have the items. Mitchell could have gotten his stuff back sooner if he promised to pay for any damage or loss to the company if he ended up being wrong. The Court also notes that due process is about the fairness of the process rather than the specifics of the procedure, and it should be flexible enough to fit different situations.

The Louisiana rules are constitutional because they meet the basic requirements of fair process. The company has to provide security and show specific facts to a neutral judge to prove they probably have a right to take the items. Then, Mitchell gets a quick hearing after the items are taken to determine the merits, and the company has to prove their case. This balances the interests of the company and Mitchell fairly. The Court's decision steps back from the broad rule in the Fuentes v. Shevin case that said a hearing must always happen before any temporary taking of property, no matter how brief. It's appropriate to reconsider that precedent here because it significantly departed from past teachings on what due process means.

I disagree with the decision because taking someone’s property without giving them a chance to speak up first isn’t fair. The majority thinks it’s okay to do it later because it protects the seller, but I believe it’s wrong since the buyer doesn’t get to explain or defend his rights before his things are taken. This lack of a timely hearing means the process isn’t as just as it should be.

—no hearing necessary for issue involving "ordinarily uncomplicated matters that lend themselves to documentary proof

—the court upheld a Louisiana sequestration statute which did not require that the debtor receive preseizure notice or hearing.

Only with great reluctance has this Court approved the seizure even of refrigerators or washing machines without notice and a prior adversary hearing; in doing so, the Court has relied on the distinction between loss of property, which can often be easily compensated, and loss of less tangible but more precious rights: " '[w] here only property rights are involved, mere …

The Supreme Court has held that Louisiana's mechanism for issuing writs of sequestration, which may be granted without notice or hearing, is constitutional, in part because opposing parties are permitted to seek the immediate dissolution of the writ.

The United States Supreme Court has in recent years considered the circumstances in which due process requires notice and a hearing prior to a prejudgment seizure of property.

—noting: "The requirements of due process of law `are not technical, nor is any particular form of procedure necessary.'Due process of law guarantees `no particular form of procedure; it protects substantial rights.'`The very nature of due process negates any concept of inflexible procedures universally applicable to every imaginable situation

A basic change in the law upon a ground no firmer than a change in our membership invites the popular misconception that this institution is little different from the two political branches of the Government. No misconception could do more lasting injury to this Court and to the system of law which it is our abiding mission to serve

—w] here only property rights are involved, mere postponement of the judicial enquiry is not a denial of due process, if the opportunity given for ultimate judicial determination of liability is adequate

The due process question must take account not only of the interests of the buyer of the property but those of the seller as well, or in this instance, the lender with a security interest.

Both the Court and its individual Members have repeatedly found the requirement of a bond to play an essential role in reducing what would have been too great a degree of risk in precisely this type of circumstance.

No, the Louisiana sequestration procedure does not violate the Due Process Clause because it provides a constitutional accommodation of the conflicting interests of the parties. Unlike the statutes struck down in Fuentes v. Shevin, the Louisiana law has several key procedural safeguards. The writ is not issued on conclusory allegations but requires a verified petition or affidavit detailing specific facts. Crucially, a judge, not a clerk, must authorize the writ. The creditor must also post a bond to protect the debtor against damages from a wrongful seizure. Most importantly, the debtor is entitled to an immediate post-seizure hearing where the creditor must prove the grounds for the writ. This framework, which recognizes the dual property interests of both buyer and seller, minimizes the risk of a wrongful deprivation while protecting the creditor's security interest against waste or alienation.

No, the Louisiana statute is constitutional. The Court's prior decision in Fuentes v. Shevin enunciated an overly broad and inflexible rule requiring a pre-seizure hearing, and this decision correctly withdraws from that principle. Due process is fully satisfied when state law requires the creditor to furnish adequate security and make a specific factual showing of probable cause before a neutral magistrate. This must be followed by a prompt post-seizure adversary hearing where the burden of proof rests on the creditor. The Louisiana statute meets these requirements and represents a fairer balancing of interests than the statutes in Fuentes, justifying a departure from the strict rule of stare decisis in this constitutional context.

Yes, the Louisiana sequestration procedure violates due process. This case is constitutionally indistinguishable from Fuentes v. Shevin, as it involves the same summary deprivation of property without prior notice or an opportunity to be heard. The procedural distinctions cited by the majority—a judge instead of a clerk and a more detailed affidavit—are insignificant, as the judge's role is merely ministerial and the affidavit is a standardized form. The Court has simply rejected the reasoning of Fuentes and adopted the analysis of the Fuentes dissent. Overruling a two-year-old precedent based on no change other than the Court's membership undermines the principle of stare decisis and the institutional integrity of the Court.

No. The Due Process Clause does not guarantee the debtor the use and possession of the goods until all issues are resolved after full adversary proceedings because the Louisiana sequestration procedure provides a constitutional balance between the interests of the buyer and seller. The procedure includes adequate safeguards such as a bond to protect the debtor, a prompt post-seizure hearing, and the ability for the debtor to regain possession by posting a bond. The risk of wrongful seizure is minimized by the nature of the issues at stake and the judicial supervision of the process. The Court emphasizes that due process is not a technical concept with a fixed content unrelated to time, place, and circumstances, and that it is flexible and calls for such procedural protections as the particular situation demands.

The Louisiana sequestration procedure is constitutional because it satisfies the essential prerequisites of procedural due process. It requires the creditor to furnish adequate security and make a specific factual showing before a neutral judicial officer of probable cause to believe they are entitled to the requested relief. The debtor is then promptly provided an opportunity for an adversary hearing after the seizure to determine the merits, with the burden of proof on the creditor. This procedure effects a fair constitutional accommodation of the conflicting interests of the creditor and debtor. The Court's decision represents a withdrawal from the broad principle enunciated in Fuentes v. Shevin that an adversary hearing must precede any temporary deprivation of property, however brief. Reconsideration of that precedent is appropriate here given its significant departure from past teachings on the meaning of due process.

I dissent from the Court’s judgment because the procedural safeguards essential to due process have been compromised by the ex parte nature of the sequestration. Unlike the majority opinion which embraces the state’s streamlined procedure on the grounds that it adequately protects both creditor and debtor, I find that the absence of a prior hearing or effective notice imperils the debtor’s significant property interest. I believe that relying solely on a later adversarial hearing is insufficient because the opportunity to contest the seizure in a timely manner is fundamental to the constitutional guarantee of a fair process. My dissent differs from the majority because it emphasizes that a merely formal showing of facts does not substitute for a full and meaningful pre-seizure inquiry, and that the risk of irreversible harm to the debtor’s rights cannot be justified by the mere convenience of protecting the creditor’s interest.

Mitchell v. W.T. Grant Co.

Case Podcast

Rule of Law:

The Legal Principle

Facts:

Procedural Posture:

How It Got Here

Issue:

Legal Question at Stake

Opinions:

Majority, Concurrences & Dissents

Analysis:

Why This Case Matters

Gunnerbot