Republic National Bank of Miami v. United States

Summary

The Court held that the prevailing party's transfer of the res outside the district does not divest an appellate court of jurisdiction over an in rem civil forfeiture proceeding. It reversed the dismissal of the Bank's appeal and remanded. Blackmun's jurisdictional opinion was joined by all Justices except Thomas. On the Appropriations Clause issue, Chief Justice Rehnquist's controlling opinion, joined by White, Scalia, Kennedy, Souter, and Thomas, concluded that existing statutes authorize payment if the Bank prevails, so a favorable judgment would not be useless. Blackmun, joined by Stevens and O'Connor, instead reasoned that returning these disputed funds would not require an appropriation. White separately preferred postponing the appropriations question but joined Rehnquist's analysis. Stevens endorsed both Blackmun's analysis and Rehnquist's statutory alternative. Thomas concurred in the judgment on jurisdiction because he would apply the newly enacted jurisdiction-preserving statute rather than decide the admiralty question.