I skimmed it, but it appears the Court is saying that Michigan is not required to have an innocent owner defense. That isn't the same as saying there can never be an innocent owner defense.
It is my understanding that all the federal civil forfeiture statues included their own innocent owner defense since the 1970s when civil forfeiture was applied to drugs.
The new statute removed ambiguities and created a uniform defense for all federal civil forfeitures.
But many jurisdictions do allow such a defense.
US federal civil forfeiture does: 18 USC § 983(d)