US government agency argues that money isn't property–so it can take yours
113 comments
·January 31, 2025mrkeen
kristopolous
reason.com doesn't really do journalism or reporting. They're an advocacy group run by a "think tank" which is a nice way of saying "propaganda company".
This is like seeing a story "Big Macs are delicious sandwiches (mcdonalds.com)". Their only obligation is to their ideology
I know a lot of people reading this are sympathetic to that ideology.
Having sympathies doesn't somehow make my description of the purpose of the organization less accurate. https://reason.org/wp-content/uploads/files/b5fb809a409cd25c...
There's nothing in there about say, valuing accurate journalism that informs the public with relevant information.
rayiner
Isn’t advocacy that pushes an ideology more or less what “journalism” means? At least Reason is open about its ideology.
autoexec
Journalism is often used as a means to advocate for an ideology, but that's certainly not the definition of the practice. Accuracy, fairness, and avoiding bias are ideals that make for much better journalism, which is why it's a shame that so much of what we actually get was written and publicized by people who don't worry very much about any of those things.
That said, if someone wants to promote an ideology then reporting on events related to what concerns them in order to inform their supporters or gain new ones seems like a very good idea.
cyanydeez
Your comment is mostly useless. It's like saying facts are being produced by fact makers and there's something wrong with making facts.
Looking at all the media right now, point to a non propaganda outlet, so we can better understand your facts.
kristopolous
404media? Wikileaks? Project Brazen? Motherboard? Bellingcat? Quanta magazine? Rest of world? Intercept? Techdirt?
Even things like BBC, CBC, NHK, NPR - you can whine about their politics but they're journalists at a news organization, trying to do their job as reporters instead of forwarding a particular agenda.
If you think sensationalist bad faith pushers who are trying to persuade an ideology are the same as journalists trying to abide by ethics, accuracy and codes of conduct who value responsibility and integrity then I can't help you.
373864483647
This is like saying criticism is useless
bende511
and their ideology is dismantling the administrative state
woooooo
They're OK on civil liberties and foreign wars, typically, so at least they're consistent with an ideology over pure partisanship.
WeylandYutani
They want to go back to the days when rich people could basically do anything they wanted.
skissane
> There's nothing in there about say, valuing accurate journalism that informs the public with relevant information.
I think your criticisms of them are unfair (at least with regards to this specific article) – and I'm speaking as someone who actually doesn't have a huge amount of agreement with their ideology (I'm no libertarian).
The grandparent is pointing out that the case was about a "fine" – the article itself doesn't use that specific word, but it is obvious to anyone who reads it that is what it is talking about. It links for more information to another page – https://ij.org/case/c-s-lawn-administrative-appeal/ – which does use that word. But I think, the author of this article (Rob Johnson) not using the term "fine", is not due to some attempt to mislead the reader – it is because the US government doesn't technically call it a "fine", calling it a "liability" is the language it uses, and being a lawyer he naturally gravitates to using the most technically correct language regarding the case. Part of the reason why it is called a "liability" not a "fine", is fines are ultimately kept by the government, whereas at least some of this $50,000 is allegedly unpaid wages which are to be ultimately paid to the employees, but the employer disputes the government's claim they underpaid them to begin with.
What the court case is actually about, is whether someone who is having a $50,000 liability imposed on them (whether as a fine or as back-payment of underpaid wages) has the constitutional right to have a proper trial before an independent judge and jury before having the liability imposed, or whether a "trial" before a "judge" who actually works for the executive agency issuing the liability is sufficient. Whatever is the right answer on that one, I don't think Johnson's position is per se unreasonable. And Johnson is picking on one of the several counterarguments to that contention that DOJ lawyers make in a brief – that constitutional protections against expropriation don't apply to money because money isn't property – and calling it out as unreasonable. I don't think Johnson is necessarily wrong here. Rejecting this contention wouldn't necessarily win the case for the non-government side, since this is really a threshold issue – are those constitutional limits even in scope here? Just because (contrary to this argument in the brief) you conclude "yes they are", doesn't mean that when you go into their details, you won't find that some exception to them applies. But if the whole thing is out of scope, you don't even reach consideration of the exceptions.
kristopolous
If someone at reason is doing unbiased investigative serious journalism then they aren't doing their job because that's not what that organization does.
It'd be like an employee of McDonald's marketing department posting press releases about what a great choice meal prepping is from local farmers markets.
A core, essential part of media literacy is understanding what the goals of the organization are and that the people working there are doing their job.
Some do journalism and everyone else knows the value of wearing it as a costume.
nelox
Yes, the government's position in this case is that the enforcement actions against the plaintiff, including the imposition of back wages and penalties, fall under the public rights doctrine, which allows administrative adjudication without infringing on constitutional protections related to private property or jury trials for legal actions. This argument frames the monetary penalties not as a deprivation of property but as a regulatory measure within the government's authority over public matters.
commandlinefan
According to the article, though, he doesn't have any option to appeal the fine (because money is not property).
kristjansson
They had several opportunities to appeal, which they took advantage of, and which _reduced_ their liability at each step
HamsterDan
Why do you think calling it a fine changes anything?
mrkeen
You're right, it doesn't. It's weird of the government to say "money is not property" in a footnote.
But it's just as nonsensical for the plaintiff to argue that he (or his business?) can't be fined because his money is his private property.
-----
Edit: no, I'm rethinking this immediately lol. If Congress passed a law saying "we're taking $16k from this dude" that's abitrary and capricious and clearly violates the guy's rights. But if laws are passed (taxation, fines) that everyone is subject to, then obviously those laws need to function by taking money. If "the gov can't take my property" is what is meant by the constitution, then fines and taxes wouldn't exist. So maybe that's what the gov means here, i.e. "money is not property for the purposes of taxation and fines".
autoexec
According the article (and sources it links to) he isn't claiming that he can't be fined, only that he should be able to argue his case in a real courtroom with a real judge or even a jury. For what it's worth, I think the guy sounds like a scumbag engaged in very shitty business practices, but that doesn't mean he shouldn't get his day in a real courtroom.
neaden
Personally because my first thought when I saw the title was that it was going to be another case of the police confiscating cash from someone because they thought it was "suspicious". I think this title is purposefully trying to mislead people.
null
autoexec
I don't think your assumptions make the article misleading. I think it's a reasonable concern that if the government views money as not being property that view will make it easier for them to engage in civil-forfeiture and prevail in challenges to the practice.
kristjansson
Because all the constitutional arguments therein are a long-shot attempt to remove a long-litigated fine by attacking the underpinnings of the administrative agency that that assessed the fine. It's like getting a speeding ticket and arguing that traffic enforcement is unconstitutional.
ty6853
It makes it easier to dismiss and thus solidify as precedent, even if nonbinding precedent.
The government is quite sly. They like to introduce evil new techniques on cases or people others will have no sympathy for, in hopes they can build new powers without resistance.
kristjansson
It's not new. The point of the footnote is to demonstrate that money and property are distinct for the kinda of constitutional argument attempted, and have been distinct since the founding.
EMIRELADERO
Excessive fines clause of the 8th Amendment?
kristjansson
Explicitly considered. The ultimate fine is much _less_ than it could have been under the controlling law.
kristjansson
The $38k isn't even truly a fine, its back-pay to the workers.
JumpCrisscross
Why did the DOJ need to footnote this in the first place?
gaze
It sounded a lot like a typical sovereign citizen argument
pie_flavor
Fines are a punishment imposed as a sentence by a judge. The plaintiff may have broken rules, but only the judicial branch is permitted to judge when you have broken the rules. When the administrative branch seems to be creating rules or imposing fines, it is actually an elaborate act of prosecutorial discretion, unless Congress has specifically permitted it to do so, unless the permission is unconstitutionally broad. Just because the guy broke the rules doesn't make it unimportant if the government is ignoring procedure and justifying itself doing so with totally nonsense arguments (which it may or may not be doing, IANAL).
mrkeen
Do judges decide speeding tickets and parking fines on a per-defendant basis?
pie_flavor
Yes! You can contest any one of them you like in court and waste the issuing officer's time making him show up to give testimony. You probably shouldn't, but you can!
9283409232
This is completely insane and if this holds then it gives the feds complete control over anyone and anything. You bow down or we take everything from you. This case needs to be watched with intense scrutiny.
> Before you run out and trade your USD for meme coins, let me reassure you: DOJ's argument is wrong. The Due Process Clause applies to "life, liberty, or property," and the Supreme Court has repeatedly applied that Clause to money. It follows that, since money is neither life nor liberty, it must be property.
The government being obviously wrong has not stopped the Supreme Court from making utterly insane judgements.
bende511
this is not an actual argument in the case. this argument is just an aside in a footnote.
the government is actually arguing that the Department of Labor is allowed to issue fines and require companies to pay back wages when they steal from their employees and lie on visa applications
walterbell
Did the footnote help their primary argument?
Was the footnote necessary?
bende511
No, I don't think it helps the govt. I don't think it was necessary. Motions, especially early ones like this, often have a lot of things in them that aren't necessary because they throw all their arguments at the wall and hope some of them stick. That's how it goes. This is likely a case of one of the DoL lawyers with a bone to pick who found a place to basically go "and another thing!"
autoexec
The argument isn't over who can issue fines, it's about who has the right to contest them in a real courtroom with a real judge or even a jury.
kristjansson
This headline and article seem like an over-reading of a technical footnote in the cited case. The relevant part of the footnote (citations omitted, emphasis added)
> It’s not clear how equating “money” with “private property” fits into the relevant analysis of whether an action is “legal” or “equitable” under the Seventh Amendment. ... And certainly CS Lawn cites no precedent for the *remarkable proposition that violations of public rights transform into private rights simply because those violations are enforced by monetary penalties*. ... But, in any event, money is not necessarily “property” for *constitutional purposes*.
and then goes on to discuss how money has been distinguished from property in other constitutional analysis e.g. why all taxes aren't deprivations or takings under the Due Process or Takings clauses. It's not an argument that money does not belong to its owner, but that money is constitutionally differentiated from property, and that differentiation was contemplated by the founders.
NB this is in the context of a business that availed itself the H2-B program contesting a finding by administrative law courts that it failed to adhere to some of the requirements of that program, and is therefore assessed a fine (which was reduced by each successive appeal within the administrative court system). They're effectively arguing, via a grab-bag of constitutional arguments, that they deserve a different sort of trial than they agreed to by (1) using the H2-B program and (2) litigating with the agreed-upon system for four years.
pdonis
It seems to me that the Reason article is using a definition of "property" that's different (and more general) from the legal definition that's being relied on in this case. A better term for what property appears to mean as far as the arguments in this case are concerned might be "tangible property" or something like that.
kristjansson
Yes, that's their slight-of-hand.
pie_flavor
Taxation isn't covered by the takings clause because taxation is in the constitution the same as the takings clause is. That's an easy one. This, on the other hand, isn't a tax, it's a fine, i.e. a punishment. And punishments are the domain of judges.
JumpCrisscross
All three of the DOJ's arguments apply to real estate. The government creates the deed. It can and does tax it. And it's allowed to Constitutionally eminent domain it for the "general welfare." Herego, property isn't property.
krunck
But: "For U.S. tax purposes, digital assets are considered property, not currency." https://www.irs.gov/businesses/small-businesses-self-employe...
I wonder about digital assets "for constitutional purposes" though?
ty6853
They are considered property because making it a taxable event every time you spend it sabotages its use as a currency, and the state knows that. Customers do not want to have to keep a log of every time they buy a pack of gum.
Johnny555
>(1) the government creates money, so you can't own it; (2) the government can tax your money, so you don't own it; and (3) the Constitution allows the government to spend money for the "general welfare."
Using that argument, actual property isn't property either. The government creates property by enforcing property rights that are really just lines on a government owned map, the government can tax your property, and the government can condemn and take your property for the general welfare.
giantg2
"Using that argument, actual property isn't property either. The government creates property by enforcing property rights that are really just lines on a government owned map, the government can tax your property, and the government can condemn and take your property for the general welfare."
I'm not sure if you know this or if you're pointing it out, but that's how it works. You have title of of deed similar to a king granting land to nobles. The nobles only own it at the king's pleasure and usually ow a tax. So too it is with the government and property tax and eminent domain, etc.
taylodl
Hey! I think we just found an issue everybody can agree on regardless of political ideology!
sky_rw
* Communism has entered the chat *
bende511
If any of you read the governments actual motion instead of the bad faith article, you'd see first of all that this "argument" of the government is an aside in a footnote, and not that relevant to their case. Which is that this lawn care company stole wages from its workers and lied on visa applications. The footnote is basically an aside about how philosophically sometimes you can't think of money as property, because it makes some other procedures like taxes difficult. It's not a load-bearing argument at all.
Reason magazine are libertarian cranks who want to get rid of the administrative state, which is what this case is actually about anyways. Basically this is an appeal to a determination by a Department of Labor Administrative Law Judge where the lawn care company is saying its unconstitutional to have administrative courts. The government is saying no its not (its not) and also you should have brought this up sometime in the last 4 years this case was being heard by the DoL, and also you would have lost in an article 3 court anyways, because you cheated your employees and lied on visa applications.
Edit: ALSO, this is not a case from the Department of Justice, as the article (written by an attorney!) states, but it's the Department of Labor. I know its a nitpick but come on!
arghandugh
Sure but that’s not going to stop Reason (a magazine for reactionary dopes that’s spent six decades arguing for the end of self-governance) from grifting for clicks as their masters storm the endzone.
bende511
grifting is easy if you have no shame and no conscience
mkoubaa
If your money is in dollars they can take your money any given Tuesday by devaluing the currency.
1970-01-01
A massive loophole in this argument: Holding money from another country (government). CAD $5000 is my property, but USD $3,439.40 (yes, that's the correct amount as of this writing) is not.
seydor
Money As A Service
spencerflem
Yeah, I'm one of the first people to accuse the courts of blantant misconduct,
But this specific case seems way overblown
This was a fine.
The plaintiff is accusing the government of being unconstitutional after being fined $38,083.20 (of unpaid wages) plus a penalty of $16,000. For:
[1] https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.255...