Honeycutt v. United States
Decided June 5, 2017. Sonia Sotomayor delivered the opinion of the Court.
Docket 16-142 · 581 U.S. 443 (2017) · Cited 239 times
Holding
Because forfeiture pursuant to §853(a)(1) is limited to property the defendant himself actually acquired as the result of the crime, that provision does not permit forfeiture with regard to Terry Honeycutt, who had no ownership interest in his brother’s store and did not personally benefit from the illegal sales.
The Court’s statement of the holding, from the opinion’s syllabus. The syllabus is prepared by the Reporter of Decisions and is not part of the opinion of the Court — read the official opinion for authority.
How the Justices voted
Decided 8–0.
Majority · 8
- Sonia Sotomayor · delivered the opinion of the Court
- Anthony McLeod Kennedy
- Clarence Thomas
- Elena Kagan
- John Glover Roberts Jr.
- Ruth Bader Ginsburg
- Samuel A. Alito Jr.
- Stephen Gerald Breyer
“Concurring” means agreeing with the outcome; any split shown is the Court’s judgment, not each Justice’s reasoning. Source: the Supreme Court Database (Spaeth et al.), Washington University.
Precedents cited
Supreme Court decisions this opinion relies on, ordered by how often it cites each. Cases in our collection link through; others are named.
- Kaley v. United States · 571 U.S. 320 (2014)
- Pinkerton v. United States · 328 U.S. 640 (1946)
- Caplin & Drysdale, Chartered v. United States · 491 U.S. 617 (1989)
- McDermott, Inc. v. AmClyde · 511 U.S. 202 (1994)
- The Palmyra · 25 U.S. 1 (1827)
- Sekhar v. United States · 570 U.S. 729 (2013)
Explore from here
Sonia Sotomayor’s profile · All Supreme Court opinions · The Supreme Court
Source: Supreme Court of the United States, slip opinions (2017). Citation count from the Free Law Project’s CourtListener bulk data. Data last verified 2026-07-03. Informational only; verify against the primary source before relying. Not a consumer report (FCRA).