The Supreme Court denied a writ of cert in the case of Taylor v. Yee yesterday, but Justice Alito put out an interesting concurrence.

The question in the case was whether California law that allows for certain assets to escheat to the State if the assets are left dormant for three years was constitutional under the Due Process Clause. The concern was whether the owners of the property were provided sufficient notice before the property escheated to the State.

The Supreme Court denied writs, but Justice Alito wrote the following concurrence:

In recent years, States have shortened the periods during which property must lie dormant before being labeled abandoned   and subject to seizure. See Bower, Note, Inequitable Escheat?: Reflecting on Unclaimed Property Law and the Supreme Court’s Interstate Escheat Framework,74 Ohio St. L. J. 515, 529, n. 81 (2013) (noting that New York, Michigan, Indiana, New Jersey, and Arizona all recently shortened their dormancy periods from as long as15 years to merely 3). And some States still rely on decidedly old-fashioned methods that are unlikely to be effective. See, e.g., Del. Code, Tit. 12, §1172 (2007 and Cum. Supp. 2014) (relying only on blanket newspaper notification).

This trend—combining shortened escheat periods with minimal notification procedures—raises important due process concerns. As advances in technology make it easier and easier to identify and locate property owners, many States appear to be doing less and less to meet their constitutional obligation to provide adequate notice before escheating private property. Cash-strapped States undoubtedly have a real interest in taking advantage of truly abandoned property to shore up state budgets. But they also have an obligation to return property when its owner can be located. To do that, States must employ notification procedures designed to provide the pre-escheat notice the Constitution requires.

The convoluted history of this case makes it a poor vehicle for reviewing the important question it presents, and therefore I concur in the denial of review. But the constitutionality of current state escheat laws is a question that may merit review in a future case.

Stay tuned to see what happens when the Court finally does examine this issue!