You have to take decisions like that in context. That forfeiture arose under Michigan law. The Supreme Court wasn&#x27;t saying that it&#x27;s a <i>good idea</i> to allow the state to seize the car without accounting for the wife&#x27;s interest. It was saying that Michigan&#x27;s lack of an innocent owner defense to the seizure didn&#x27;t rise to the level of a Constitutional violation.<p>A lot of decisions that seem &quot;outrageously stupid&quot; make more sense if you think of the Supreme Court as an umpire. The democratically-elected legislatures are supposed to make good decisions. The unelected Supreme Court should only check them if they do something egregiously against the rules. The Court should let the &quot;game play on&quot; if there&#x27;s not a very good reason to say that a 200+ year old document trumps a state legislature&#x27;s contemporary decisions.