In the United States v. Guy Jerome Ursery case of 1995, the U.S Supreme Court ruled that civil forfeiture does not constitute "punishment" for a crime and therefore doesn't violate the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment. The defendant, Guy Jerome Ursery, was convicted on charges related to growing marijuana plants and his property was seized by authorities under drug forfeiture laws. He appealed this decision arguing that since he had already been punished through criminal proceedings, further punishment via civil asset forfeiture constituted double jeopardy. However, in a unanimous decision led by Justice Rehnquist, it was determined that such forfeitures are remedial civil sanctions rather than punitive measures subject to limitations imposed by Double Jeopardy Clause.

In the dissenting opinion for United States v. Ursery, Justice John Paul Stevens argued that civil forfeiture should be considered as punishment and thus subject to double jeopardy protections. He contended that the majority's decision was inconsistent with previous rulings where fines were considered punitive in nature. Furthermore, he disagreed with their interpretation of various historical precedents which they used to support their argument that forfeitures are not punitive but remedial actions by the government. In his view, these cases did not establish a clear distinction between criminal penalties and civil remedies nor did they provide sufficient evidence to suggest that forfeitures have always been viewed as non-punitive measures throughout history.