The United States v. James Daniel Good Real Property et al., 1993, was a case that revolved around the issue of civil forfeiture laws and due process rights under the Fifth Amendment. The U.S government seized James Daniel Good's home in Hawaii without prior notice or hearing, alleging it had been purchased with proceeds from illegal drug sales. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Good, stating that seizure of property is subject to due process requirements and cannot be carried out without providing notice and an opportunity for a hearing before the seizure takes place unless there are extraordinary circumstances present such as immediate danger or risk of removal or destruction of evidence. This ruling significantly impacted future cases involving asset forfeiture by requiring law enforcement agencies to provide individuals with advance notice and an opportunity to contest seizures.

In the dissenting opinion for United States v. James Daniel Good Real Property, Justice Thomas argued that the majority's decision undermines a long-standing principle of forfeiture law and unnecessarily complicates procedures in this area. He contended that there was no constitutional requirement for pre-seizure notice or hearing before civil forfeiture because such proceedings are remedial rather than punitive in nature. The justice also pointed out that requiring pre-seizure hearings would place an undue burden on government resources and could potentially allow criminals to dispose of their assets before they can be seized by authorities. Furthermore, he disagreed with the majority's interpretation of 'exigent circumstances' which allows seizure without prior notice or hearing only when immediate action is necessary to prevent destruction or removal of property; instead, he believed it should include situations where delay might hinder enforcement efforts.