Does the Due Process Clause, as construed by Shaffer v. Heitner, require application of the "minimum contacts" test to true in rem proceedings?; and

Does 28 U.S.C. § 1355(b) preempt State property situs laws and create a "legal fiction" that property subject to forfeiture—located anywhere in the world—is legally sited in "the district in which any of the acts or omissions giving rise to the forfeiture occurred"?

If the answer to the above question is "yes," does the "legal fiction" of property situs established by 28 U.S.C. 1355(b) per se satisfy due process and thereby dispense with a court's obligation to determine whether a property owner himself has actual, purposeful, minimum contacts with the forum?

Does the Due Process Clause require application of the minimum-contacts test to in-rem proceedings?