The Supreme Court's review of lower court decisions is mostly discretionary, so the decision not to review a particular case is not an approval by the Supreme Court of the decision reached below. In fact, that seems to be especially the case here, as Justices Alito and Thomas agreed with the decision to deny review the Ninth Circuit's decision in Taylor, but warned that the "constitutionality of the current state of escheat laws is a question that may merit review in a future case."
In making that determination, the Justices noted that the combination of "shortened escheat periods with minimal notification procedures" raised "important due process concerns." Among the notable points of the concurrence:
- a critique that some states' notification procedures "rely on old-fashioned methods that are unlikely to be effective." (citing Delaware's newspaper publication statute); and
- affirmation of the view that the Constitution requires states to provide "pre-escheat notice" before property is taken by the state; and
- a recognition that "[a]s 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."