High court limits seizure of assets from drug conspiracies
U.S. Supreme Court
The Supreme Court is limiting the government's ability to seize assets from people who are convicted of drug crimes but receive little of the illegal proceeds.
The justices ruled Monday that a Tennessee man convicted for his role selling iodine water purification filters to methamphetamine makers does not have to forfeit nearly $70,000 in profits.
Terry Honeycutt helped sell more than 20,000 filters at his brother's hardware store. Prosecutors said the brothers knew the iodine was used by local meth cooks.
Honeycutt's brother pleaded guilty and forfeited $200,000 of the $270,000 in profits. But Honeycutt argued he wasn't responsible for the rest since he didn't personally see any profits.
A federal appeals court ruled against Honeycutt, saying everyone who joins a drug conspiracy can be required to give up profits.
Related listings
-
Trump Administration Seeks Appeal to Pause White House Ballroom Halt Order
U.S. Supreme Court 04/07/2026The Trump administration is arguing that a judge's order to halt construction of a $400 million ballroom creates a security risk for President Donald Trump as it asks a federal appeals court to pause the ruling.In a motion filed Friday, National Park...
-
Tax reform may grow donor base but shrink overall nonprofit contributions
U.S. Supreme Court 03/17/2026Millions more Americans will likely donate to nonprofits following changes in tax laws passed by Congress last summer, but those changes will also likely reduce the overall amount of money given to charity, according to new research.The report from t...
-
Federal judge leaves CDC evictions moratorium in place
U.S. Supreme Court 08/13/2021A federal judge is refusing landlords’ request to put the Biden administration’s new eviction moratorium on hold, though she made clear she thinks it’s illegal. U.S. District Judge Dabney Friedrich on Friday said her “hands ar...
Grounds for Divorce in Ohio - Sylkatis Law, LLC
A divorce in Ohio is filed when there is typically “fault” by one of the parties and party not at “fault” seeks to end the marriage. A court in Ohio may grant a divorce for the following reasons:
• Willful absence of the adverse party for one year
• Adultery
• Extreme cruelty
• Fraudulent contract
• Any gross neglect of duty
• Habitual drunkenness
• Imprisonment in a correctional institution at the time of filing the complaint
• Procurement of a divorce outside this state by the other party
Additionally, there are two “no-fault” basis for which a court may grant a divorce:
• When the parties have, without interruption for one year, lived separate and apart without cohabitation
• Incompatibility, unless denied by either party
However, whether or not the the court grants the divorce for “fault” or not, in Ohio the party not at “fault” will not get a bigger slice of the marital property.