The Supreme Court of the United States convened on February 27, 2024, to discuss the case of McIntosh v. United States, focusing on the procedural aspects of asset forfeiture in criminal cases. Central to the discussions was whether the defendant had adequate notice of the forfeiture and an opportunity to contest it prior to the court's decision during sentencing.

Counsel for the petitioner argued that the defendant was properly informed about the government's intent to seek forfeiture through the indictment and the bill of particulars. They asserted that the lower court had already determined there was no prejudice against the defendant, thus supporting the request for the Supreme Court to affirm the lower court's judgment.

Justice Sotomayor raised concerns regarding the government's role in the forfeiture process, noting instances where the government failed to prepare necessary orders. She questioned whether labeling the provision as a time-related directive might inadvertently encourage non-compliance with district court orders. In response, the petitioner’s counsel emphasized that there are significant incentives for the government to adhere to the rules, including the ability to seize property and provide notice to third parties regarding forfeiture.

The discussion also touched on the Seventh Circuit's suggestion in the case of US versus Lee, which posited that a forfeiture must be announced at sentencing to avoid jurisdictional issues. This point remains a critical consideration as the Court deliberates on the procedural requirements for asset forfeiture in criminal proceedings.

The outcome of this case could have significant implications for how forfeiture is handled in the judicial system, particularly regarding the rights of defendants and the responsibilities of the government in ensuring compliance with procedural rules. The Court's decision will likely clarify the standards for notifying defendants and the timing of forfeiture announcements in future cases.