Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act (CAFRA, 2000)

1) Link to the Text of the Act
Read the statute (18 U.S.C. § 983)

2) Why It Was Done
Civil asset forfeiture allowed law enforcement to seize property suspected of being connected to crime, often without charging the owner. CAFRA was passed to strengthen due process protections for property owners while preserving forfeiture as a law enforcement tool.

3) Pre-existing Law or Constitutional Rights
Forfeiture practices pre-date CAFRA and were widely criticized for violating Fifth Amendment due process and Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable seizures. CAFRA added procedural safeguards.

USA PATRIOT Act (2001)

1) Link to the Text of the Act
Read the statute on Congress.gov

2) Why It Was Done
Passed quickly after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, the PATRIOT Act expanded law enforcement and intelligence agencies’ powers to investigate and prevent terrorism.

3) Pre-existing Law or Constitutional Rights
Amended or expanded numerous existing laws, including the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA, 1978) and federal criminal procedure statutes. Raised concerns about conflicts with Fourth Amendment privacy rights.

Homeland Security Act (2002)

1) Link to the Text of the Act
Read the statute (6 U.S.C. § 101 et seq.)

2) Why It Was Done
Passed in the aftermath of September 11, 2001, the Act created the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to coordinate national efforts against terrorism, improve border security, and streamline emergency response.

3) Pre-existing Law or Constitutional Rights
Before 2002, counterterrorism and homeland security functions were spread across multiple agencies (FBI, INS, Customs, FEMA, Coast Guard). The Act consolidated them into a single Cabinet-level department.

Martin v. United States (2025)

1) Link to the Actual Opinion
Read the Supreme Court opinion (PDF)

2) Summary of the Opinion
Martin sued the federal government after an FBI wrong-house raid caused significant harm. The government argued the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA)’s discretionary function exception and the Supremacy Clause barred the claim. The Supreme Court disagreed, holding that the FTCA’s law enforcement proviso allows suits for certain intentional torts by federal officers, and neither the discretionary function exception nor Supremacy Clause immunized the government in this context.