She was very lucky to get it back. Probably the only reason was they hoped she would drop the suit.

And to add, the lawsuit didn’t lose on its merits, but on lack of jurisdiction.

I feel like for lack of jurisdiction, the courts should refuse to hear the case, rather than have it count as a "lost" case?

I mean, that's basically what happens.

The "lost her case" language is very much a public narrative around the court case, but from the legal perspective, her suit was dismissed for a lack of jurisdiction, which is pretty much the court refusing to consider the case.

Not really. Dismissed isn't the same thing as losing. The suit couldn't go forward because they returned the money, so she has no damages to sue over. I wonder if you can sue for lawyer fees...they took her money and made her hire a lawyer to get it back "willingly", something she wouldn't have had to do if they didn't take the money in the first place.

The next person to try might try to get standing by claiming the loss of $40k lost the opportunity to gain interest or something along those lines.

They paid her back with interest, exactly as they are required to do.

It depends what her suit asked for in "relief." Sometimes you can get punitive damages, even if the money was returned. Or I've sometimes got the money I wanted but continued the part of the suit for declaratory judgment (e.g. to force the government to declare they violated my rights).

The article itself has the title:

> The FBI Seized Her $40,000 Without Explaining Why. She Fought Back Against That Practice—and Lost

I think it's decent, but still a bit ambiguous. Less ambiguous than if it just said "She Fought Back and Lost". My initial assumption formed by the title was still that she didn't get her money back.

The submission title is "FBI seized $40k from Linda Martin without charging her with a crime" which doesn't have that issue.

It was not that originally.