Press Release

June 1, 2026

Press Release

WLF Asks Supreme Court to Require Jury Findings for Criminal Forfeiture

Download the PDF

“Judicial fact-finding by a mere preponderance for criminal forfeiture eviscerates the Sixth Amendment and invites arbitrary deprivations of property on a massive scale.”
—Cory Andrews, WLF General Counsel & Vice President of Litigation

Click HERE to read WLF’s brief.

WASHINGTON, DC—Washington Legal Foundation (WLF) today urged the U.S. Supreme Court to grant certiorari and overrule Libretti v. United States, which held that the Sixth Amendment does not require a jury to determine the facts necessary for criminal forfeiture. WLF contends that permitting judges to determine facts necessary to impose criminal forfeiture by a mere preponderance of the evidence violates the Sixth Amendment and erodes the jury’s historic role as a check on government power. The Due Process Institute, National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, and National Association for Public Defense joined WLF on the brief.

The case arises from Martin Mizrahi’s conviction after trial in the Southern District of New York on federal fraud and money laundering charges. The district court ordered him to forfeit more than $4.5 million, relying heavily on its own finding by a preponderance of the evidence that millions of dollars constituted illicit proceeds of narcotics trafficking. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the conviction and forfeiture order.

In its amicus brief, WLF argues that criminal forfeiture is punishment, and centuries of common-law practice requires that juries—not judges—find the facts that increase a defendant’s penalty. Libretti is thus irreconcilable with that history as well as the Court’s subsequent Apprendi line of cases. Its stale rule exposes defendants to billions of dollars in annual forfeitures without the procedural safeguards the Constitution demands. WLF’s brief was prepared with the generous pro bono support of William Havemann, Kristina Alekseyeva, Natalie Nogueira, Samantha Ilagan, and Jonathan Wampler of Milbank LLP.

Related Cases

March 18, 2015

Proposed Amendments to the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines—Economic Crimes

On March 18, 2015 WLF submitted comments applauding the Commission for recognizing the pressing need to reform the current Guidelines for white-collar defendants convicted of economic crimes. In past submissions to the Commission, WLF has identified troubling aspects of the Guidelines that produce sentences that are greater than necessary for...

Related Content

Legal Opinion Letters

August 9, 2019

U.S. v. Davis: The Supreme Court Provides Further Clarity on How It Will Remedy Vague Laws

By David Debold, a Partner in the Washington, DC office of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP.  He practices in the Appellate and White Collar practice groups.  He and other Gibson Dunn attorneys filed an amicus brief in support of the Respondents in U.S. v. Davis on behalf of FAMM. Sometimes...

Legal Opinion Letters

July 29, 2016

Apprendi Applies to White-Collar Defendants Too

By David Debold, a Partner with Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP in the firm’s Washington, DC office. Fifteen years after the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), new opportunities still arise for criminal defendants to take advantage of that case’s key Sixth...

Legal Backgrounders

October 7, 2015

The Supreme Court’s Johnson v. United States Ruling: A Vagueness Doctrine Revolution?

By David Debold, a Partner and Rachel E. Mondl, an Associate, in Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP’s Washington DC office. A criminal law violates the constitutional right to due process when the law is “so vague that it fails to give ordinary people fair notice of the conduct it punishes,...