Notable voices speaking out against civil forfeiture as SCOTUS argument over required process approaches

Next Monday, the US Supreme Court will hear oral argument in Culley v. Marshall, No. 22-585, which presents this question:

In determining whether the Due Process Clause requires a state or local government to provide a post seizure probable cause hearing prior to a statutory judicial forfeiture proceeding and, if so, when such a hearing must take place, should district courts apply the “speedy trial” test employed in United States v. $8,850, 461 U.S. 555 (1983) and Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (1972), as held by the Eleventh Circuit or the three-part due process analysis set forth in Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976) as held by at least the Second, Fifth, Seventh, and Ninth Circuits.

Because there are many folks on both the left and the right who are not big fans of civil forfeiture of property, almost all of the advocate amicus briefing is in support of the individual for more process.  And some of the commentary I have seen recently on this case is likewise pretty one-sided (though coming from all political sides):

From Balls & Strikes, “How Easily Can Cops Steal Your Stuff, and Other Hard Questions For the Supreme Court“

From The Hill, “Ending state-sanctioned theft to preserve police legitimacy“

From The Federalist, “The Supreme Court Shouldn’t Let Governments Get Away With Impounding Innocent People’s Property“

From USA Today, “I was innocent, but police seized my car and stalled for years. Their scheme has to stop.“

Though I do not follow forfeiture issues and doctrines all that closely, I am extremely interested to see how the current group of Justices approach a Due Process issue that could possibly have all sort of ripple effects.