The Supreme Court ruled on Wednesday that the government may not freeze assets needed to pay criminal defense lawyers if the assets are not linked to a crime.

According to WSJ, with a 5-3 decision, the Supreme Court found the Constitution's right to counsel trumped the government's interest in preserving funds for restitution and penalties should prosecutors obtain a conviction. Stephen Bryer said "the relevant difference consists of the fact that the property here is untainted, i.e., it belongs to the defendant, pure and simple." It should be notable that the federal law authorizes courts to freeze assets linked to criminal activities.

The case have stemmed in the prosecution done to Sila Luis, a Florida woman who was charged with Medicare fraud, as reported by New York Times. There is a huge amount of $45 million in charges involved for unneeded and nonexistent services. Prosecutors had requested the judge to freeze $2 million of Ms. Luis' funds that were not connected to the scheme as it could be used to pay fines and pay her lawyers. However, the Supreme Court ruled that the judgment was a violation of her Sixth Amendment which is the right to seek assistance of counsel.

In dissent, Justice Anthony Kennedy said the principle declared in the majority "rewards criminals who hurry to spend, conceal, or launder stolen property," Outside The Belt Way wrote. He added that the true winners of today are the 'sophisticated criminals' that know how to make criminal proceedings untainted.

The three justices, Justice Anthony Kennedy, Samuel Alito and Elena Kegan are the ones who dissented in the decision. Meanwhile, a lawyer for Ms. Luis could not be reached while the Justice Department declined to comment.