748 F.3d 870
9th Cir.2014Background
- Ruperto Guillen-Cervantes and Betty Castillo were convicted in connection with an alien‑smuggling conspiracy in Tucson, Arizona, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1).
- Each received 37 months imprisonment and a criminal forfeiture judgment: $229,000 (Guillen‑Cervantes) and $290,000 (Castillo).
- Castillo appealed only the forfeiture judgment, arguing it violated her Fifth Amendment due process rights because she cannot seek contribution from co‑conspirators to reduce her forfeiture liability.
- Castillo conceded no federal statute affirmatively grants a right to contribution in this context and asked the court to (1) imply a contribution right under 18 U.S.C. § 982 or (2) create one under federal common law.
- The Ninth Circuit reviewed the constitutional challenge de novo and considered whether a constitutionally protected property interest exists in a right to contribution.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Castillo has a constitutionally protected property interest in a right to contribution from co‑conspirators after criminal forfeiture | Castillo: § 982 should be interpreted to imply a right to contribution, or federal common law should supply one, and withholding that right violates due process | Government: No statute creates such a right; Congress did not intend a contribution right for convicted alien‑smugglers; courts should not create one by federal common law | Held: No protected property interest — neither statutory implication nor federal common law creates a contribution right; due process claim fails |
| Whether § 982(a)(6)(A) implies a right to contribution | Castillo: legislative scheme and text support an implied contribution right | Government: § 982 was enacted to expand forfeiture against smugglers, not to benefit them; legislative history shows remedial, punitive intent | Held: No implied right — legislative history and statutory purpose weigh against implication |
| Whether federal common law should create a contribution right in this immigration/criminal context | Castillo: courts can fashion contribution rights where appropriate | Government: Creating such a right intrudes on immigration enforcement, a domain of Congress and the Executive | Held: No federal common law right — creating one is not needed to protect unique federal interests and Congress has not empowered courts to do so |
| Whether denial of contribution violates Fifth Amendment due process | Castillo: deprivation of contribution is a property interest deprivation | Government: absent an underlying statutory or common‑law right, no constitutionally protected interest exists | Held: Denial does not violate due process because no underlying right exists |
Key Cases Cited
- Town of Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (defining property interests as created by independent sources such as state law)
- Bd. of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564 (property interest requires a legitimate claim of entitlement)
- Tex. Indus., Inc. v. Radcliff Materials, Inc., 451 U.S. 630 (standards for finding implied rights and limits on federal common law creation)
- Musick, Peeler & Garrett v. Employers Ins. of Wausau, 508 U.S. 286 (recognizing federal common law contribution where judicially created private right exists)
- Cooper Stevedoring Co. v. Fritz Kopke, 417 U.S. 106 (federal common law contribution in admiralty context)
- Wheeldin v. Wheeler, 373 U.S. 647 (limits on creating federal common law)
- United States v. Garcia‑Guizar, 234 F.3d 483 (Ninth Circuit review standard cited)
- Wedges/Ledges of Cal., Inc. v. City of Phoenix, 24 F.3d 56 (threshold for identifying protected liberty or property interests)