A video from Michigan attorney Steve Lehto
describing the response of SCOTUS to oral arguments about a civil forfeiture case where a man's car was seized for him selling drugs worth ~1% of the value of the car.
The State Attorney General articulated the standard legal view at the moment, based on the last SCOTUS ruling on the matter (which is that they could, in principle, seize your car because you were speeding by 5 mph) and, apparently, the JUSTICES LAUGHED AT HIM. They aren't framing this as a question of due process, but of excessive fines, so it won't make Civil Forfeiture go away no matter what they eventually rule, but it could force proportionality between the alleged offense and the forfeiture (which might at least eliminate forfeitures where there is no actual allegation of any specific crime).