v. Monsanto, the Eleventh Circuit held that the Supreme Court of the United States's criminal forfeiture jurisprudence foreclosed constitutional challenges to the seizure of untainted assets. Luis appealed the Eleventh Circuit's decision, and the Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the case. Opinion of the Court Writing for a plurality of the Court, Justice Stephen Breyer held that "the pretrial restraint of legitimate, untainted assets needed to retain counsel of choice violates the Sixth Amendment". In an opinion concurring in the judgment, Justice Clarence Thomas concluded that "the Sixth Amendment prevents the Government from freezing untainted assets in order to secure a potential forfeiture". Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the plurality opinion and Justice Thomas's opinion both "[create] perverse incentives and [provide] protection for defendants who spend stolen money rather than their own". Justice Elena Kagan also wrote a dissenting opinion in which she stated that "I am not altogether convinced that ... the Government’s interest in recovering the proceeds of crime ought to trump the defendant’s (often highly consequential) right to retain counsel of choice", but ultimately concluded that United States v. Monsanto should control the outcome of the case because Luis never asked the Court to overrule Monsanto in her arguments before the Court. Commentary and analysis In her analysis of the case for SCOTUSblog, Amy Howe wrote that "it’s not clear how significant the effect of this decision will actually be" because the government can still "use tracing rules to distinguish between tainted and untainted assets when the two are intermingled". Mark Joseph Stern described the case as "triumph for the right to counsel, at a time when it is in desperate need of a win" and wrote that the Court's decision "send[s] a clear message that the Sixth Amendment’s Assistance of Counsel provision remains robust". In a review of the case for Esquire, Charles P. Pierce praised the Court's decision and wrote that "my every instinct tells me that the Supreme Court shouldn't have to [declare that the government cannot] pauperize a criminal defendant". See also List of United States Supreme Court cases Lists of United States Supreme Court cases by volume List of United States Supreme Court cases by the Roberts Court References External links United States Supreme Court cases of the Roberts Court United States Supreme Court cases 2016 in United States case law