Tyler v. Hennepin County

Tyler v. Hennepin County
Tyler v. Hennepin County
	Supreme Court of the United States
Argued April 26, 2023; Decided May 25, 2023
Full case name	Geraldine Tyler, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Hennepin County, and Daniel P. Rogan, Auditor-Treasurer, in his official capacity
Docket no.	22-166
Citations	598 U.S. 631 ( more )
Argument	Oral argument
Case history
Prior	Motion to dismiss granted, 505 F.Supp.3d 879 (D. Minn. 2020); affirmed, 26 F.4th 789 (8th Cir. 2022); cert. granted (Jan 13, 2023)
Questions presented
	1. Whether taking and selling a home to satisfy a debt to the government, and keeping the surplus value as a windfall, violates the Takings Clause? 2. Whether the forfeiture of property worth far more than needed to satisfy a debt plus, interest, penalties, and costs, is a fine within the meaning of the Eighth Amendment?
Holding
	Hennepin County’s retention of the excess value of her home above her tax debt violated the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment.
Court membership
	Chief Justice John Roberts Associate Justices Clarence Thomas · Samuel Alito ; Sonia Sotomayor · Elena Kagan ; Neil Gorsuch · Brett Kavanaugh ; Amy Coney Barrett · Ketanji Brown Jackson
Case opinions
Majority	Roberts, joined by unanimous
Concurrence	Gorsuch, joined by Jackson
Laws applied
	U.S. Const. amends. V, XIV, Minn. Stat. §§ 280.29, 280.41, 282.08

Last updated February 16, 2024

Tyler v. Hennepin County, 598 U.S. 631 (2023), was a United States Supreme Court case about government seizure of property for unpaid taxes, when the value of the property seized is greater than the tax debt. A unanimous court held that the surplus value is protected by the Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause.

Tyler sued the county, arguing that the $25,000 surplus home equity value was property that the county took away from her in violation of the Fifth Amendment and Eighth Amendment. The district court dismissed the case, ruling in favor of the county on all of Tyler's claims, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed. Tyler petitioned to the Supreme Court, which agreed to review the case.^[1]^[2]

The case was filed in 2019 as a class action by attorneys Charles Watkins, Garrett Blanchfield, Vildan Teske, and Roberta Yard.

On appeal, Christina Martin, an attorney with the Pacific Legal Foundation, joined Tyler's attorneys and represented Tyler as well as Kevin Fair, who had a similar case before the Supreme Court.^[3]

Background

In 1999, Geraldine Tyler purchased a condominium in North Minneapolis. For a decade, she lived in the condo and paid taxes on the property. In 2010, after a frightening altercation with a neighbor, Tyler sought to move into a safer community. Subsequently, she neglected to pay property taxes on her North Minneapolis condo.

In 2015, after years of property tax delinquency, Hennepin County seized Tyler's condo, foreclosed on it, and sold it for $40,000. Tyler had accrued a tax bill of $2,300 on the property, in addition to $13,200 of associated interest, fines, and penalties. Hennepin County retained all of the profits of the sale (about $25,000) and returned none of it to Tyler, pursuant to Minnesota law.

In 2019, Tyler filed a class action alleging that the taking of property worth far more than was needed to relieve a tax debt and retaining the profits violated the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment, the Excessive Fines Clause of the Eighth Amendment, and substantive due process. Tyler's case was dismissed by the district court in December 2020. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed the judgment of the lower court.

On August 19, 2022, Tyler petitioned the Supreme Court to hear her case. The court granted certiorari on January 13, 2023. It handed down the decision on May 25, 2023.^[4]

Supreme Court opinions

Chief Justice Roberts delivered a unanimous opinion for the court in which he addresses the first question on which the justices granted review (relating to the Takings Clause). At oral arguments, Tyler argued that if the court ruled in her favor on her the first question, then they need not decide the second question, on whether she has also alleged an excessive fine under the Eighth Amendment. Justice Gorsuch authored an opinion concurring in the court's judgment, but going further as to criticize the Eighth Circuit's reasoning in dismissing Tyler's Eighth Amendment claim.

Roberts's majority opinion

Roberts's opinion consists of three parts. First, he argues that Tyler suffered a financial harm following the county's refusal to return to her the surplus equity of her home. Next, he argues that Tyler has sufficiently alleged a violation of the Takings Clause. Lastly, he rejects the county's argument that Tyler had relinquished any interest in the surplus equity in her home due to her failure to pay property taxes.

In its arguments, Hennepin County argued that Tyler lacked standing to sue. To bring a takings claim, a plaintiff must state an injury that is attributable to the defendant's conduct and that is redressable by the court. It alleged that Tyler failed to "disclaim the existence of other debts or encumbrances" on her home worth more than the $25,000 surplus. However, the county also failed to prove the existence of any such debts or encumbrances. And even if it had, Tyler would still plausibly allege a financial harm — the county had taken $25,000 that belonged to Tyler. Had any such debts existed, she could have used the excess proceeds from the sale to reduce such liability.

Roberts next addresses the history regarding practices like those undertaken by Hennepin County here — namely, the taking of more than what is owed to satisfy a debt. He states:

The principle that a government may not take more from a taxpayer than she owes can trace its origins at least as far back as Runnymeade in 1215, where King John swore in the Magna Carta that when his sheriff or bailiff came to collect any debts owed him from a dead man, they could remove property “until the debt which is evident shall be fully paid to us; and the residue shall be left to the executors to fulfil the will of the deceased.” 598 U.S. 631, 639(2023)

He cites other cases from English law and American Colonial Law establishing the consensus that the government may not take more than it was owed to satisfy a debt, and states that that consensus "held true through the passage of the Fourteenth Amendment." Additionally, he says, this consensus remains true at the time of writing, as 36 states and the Federal Government require the excess value to be returned to the taxpayer.

Roberts states that Hennepin County failed to cite a case in which property tax delinquency was sufficient for abandonment, which would require the surrender, relinquishment, or disclaimer of all property rights. Minnesota's tax forfeiture scheme, he argues, gives no weight to the taxpayer's use of the property, as a homeowner could continue to live in their house for years after defaulting on their taxes before the government sells it.

Gorsuch's concurring opinion

Gorsuch's opinion raises concerns about how lower courts had ruled against Tyler in her Eighth Amendment claim. The District Court had ruled that Minnesota's tax-forfeiture scheme was not "punitive" because its primary purpose was to compensate the county for the lost revenue resulting from unpaid taxes. However, quoting Austin v. United States , Gorsuch counters that the Excessive Fines Clause applies to statutory schemes that serve in part to punish. The lower court had also argued that the scheme in question could not be punitive since it would confer a windfall on homeowners whose tax bill exceeded the value of the property. Gorsuch responds:

That observation may be factually true, but it is legally irrelevant. Some prisoners better themselves behind bars; some addicts credit court-ordered rehabilitation with saving their lives. But punishment remains punishment all the same. Of course, no one thinks that an individual who profits from an economic penalty has a winning excessive-fines claim. But nor has this Court ever held that a scheme producing fines that punishes some individuals can escape constitutional scrutiny merely because it does not punish others. 598 U.S. 631, 649(2023)

Lastly, Gorsuch argues against the county's claim that since Minnesota's tax-forfeiture scheme does not condition the loss of surplus equity on a criminal conviction (or even on criminal behavior), it is therefore not punitive. Quoting United States v. Bajakajian , Gorsuch counters that the Court has said that such a scheme may still be punitive where it serves another “goal of punishment,” such as deterrence, and that the District Court approved the Minnesota tax-forfeiture scheme on the grounds that "the ultimate possibility of loss of property serves as a deterrent to those taxpayers considering tax delinquency". In any other context, he says, a statutory scheme that imposes a monetary penalty in order to deter willful noncompliance with the law would readily be identified as a fine, and that:

...the Constitution has something to say about [fines]: They cannot be excessive. 598 U.S. 631, 650(2023)

Related Research Articles

The Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution protects against imposing excessive bail, excessive fines, or cruel and unusual punishments. This amendment was adopted on December 15, 1791, along with the rest of the United States Bill of Rights. The amendment serves as a limitation upon the state or federal government to impose unduly harsh penalties on criminal defendants before and after a conviction. This limitation applies equally to the price for obtaining pretrial release and the punishment for crime after conviction. The phrases in this amendment originated in the English Bill of Rights of 1689.

The Institute for Justice (IJ) is a libertarian non-profit public interest law firm in the United States. It has litigated ten cases before the United States Supreme Court dealing with eminent domain, interstate commerce, public financing for elections, school vouchers, tax credits for private school tuition, civil asset forfeiture, and residency requirements for liquor license. The organization was founded on September 3, 1991. As of 2023, it employed a staff of 157 full-time staff members in Arlington, Virginia and seven offices across the United States.

A Due Process Clause is found in both the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, which prohibit the deprivation of "life, liberty, or property" by the federal and state governments, respectively, without due process of law.

Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005), was a landmark decision by the Supreme Court of the United States in which the Court held, 5–4, that the use of eminent domain to transfer land from one private owner to another private owner to further economic development does not violate the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment. In the case, plaintiff Susette Kelo sued the city of New London, Connecticut, for violating her civil rights after the city tried to acquire her house's property through eminent domain so that the land could be used as part of a "comprehensive redevelopment plan". Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for the five-justice majority that the city's use of eminent domain was permissible under the Takings Clause, because the general benefits the community would enjoy from economic growth qualified as "public use".

Richard John Baker v. Gerald R. Nelson, 291 Minn. 310, 191 N.W.2d 185 (1971), was a case in which the Minnesota Supreme Court decided that construing a marriage statute to restrict marriage licenses to persons of the opposite sex "does not offend" the U.S. Constitution. Baker appealed the decision, and on October 10, 1972, the U.S. Supreme Court dismissed the appeal "for want of a substantial federal question".

The Roberts Court is the time since 2005 during which the Supreme Court of the United States has been led by John Roberts as Chief Justice. Roberts succeeded William Rehnquist as Chief Justice after Rehnquist's death.

Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council, Inc. v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, 535 U.S. 302 (2002), is one of the United States Supreme Court's more recent interpretations of the Takings Clause of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. The case dealt with the question of whether a moratorium on construction of individual homes imposed by the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency fell under the Takings Clause of the United States Constitution and whether the landowners therefore should receive just compensation as required by that clause. The Tahoe Regional Planning Agency was represented by future Chief Justice John Roberts. Justice John Paul Stevens wrote the opinion of the Court, finding that the moratorium did not constitute a taking. It reasoned that there was an inherent difference between the acquisition of property for public use and the regulation of property from private use. The majority concluded that the moratorium at issue in this case should be classified as a regulation of property from private use and therefore no compensation was required.

United States v. Bajakajian, 524 U.S. 321 (1998), is a U.S. Supreme Court case holding that asset forfeiture is unconstitutional when it is "grossly disproportional to the gravity of the defendant’s offense", citing the Excessive Fines clause of the Eighth Amendment. It was the first time the Court struck down the federal government's "aggressive use of forfeiture" and the only time it has held that an imposed fine was unconstitutional under the Eighth Amendment.

The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution creates several constitutional rights, limiting governmental powers focusing on criminal procedures. It was ratified, along with nine other articles, in 1791 as part of the Bill of Rights.

The Pacific Legal Foundation (PLF) is an American nonprofit public interest legal organization established for the purpose of defending and promoting individual and economic freedom. PLF attorneys provide pro bono legal representation, file amicus curiae briefs, and hold administrative proceedings with the stated goal of supporting property rights, equality before the law, freedom of speech and association, economic liberty, and the separation of powers. The organization is the first and oldest libertarian public interest law firm, having been founded in 1973.

Williamson County Regional Planning Commission v. Hamilton Bank of Johnson City, 473 U.S. 172 (1985), is a U.S. Supreme Court case that limited access to federal court for plaintiffs alleging uncompensated takings of private property under the Fifth Amendment. In June 2019, this case was overruled in part by the Court's decision in Knick v. Township of Scott, Pennsylvania.

Stop the Beach Renourishment v. Florida Department of Environmental Protection, 560 U.S. 702 (2010), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the Florida Supreme Court did not effect an unconstitutional taking of littoral property owners' rights to future accretions and to contact the water by upholding Florida's beach renourishment program.

Horne v. Department of Agriculture, 569 U.S. 513 (2013) ; 576 U.S. 351 (2015), is a case in which the United States Supreme Court issued two decisions regarding the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The case arose out of a dispute involving the National Raisin Reserve, when a farmer challenged a rule that required farmers to keep a portion of their crops off the market. In Horne I the Court held that the plaintiff had standing to sue for violation of the United States Constitution’s Takings Clause. In Horne II the Court held that the National Raisin Reserve was an unconstitutional violation of the Takings Clause.

Austin v. United States, 509 U.S. 602 (1993), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution applies to civil forfeiture cases.

Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Comer, 582 U.S. ___ (2017), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that a Missouri program that denied a grant to a religious school for playground resurfacing, while providing grants to similarly situated non-religious groups, violated the freedom of religion guaranteed by the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Minnesota Voters Alliance v. Mansky, 585 U.S. ___ (2018), was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court concerning the constitutionality of governmental speech restrictions in a polling place venue. The case challenged a century-old Minnesota law that prevents voters from wearing clothing or items considered political while voting. While the Supreme Court previously affirmed that political campaigning near polling places may be restricted, the Minnesota law was challenged on being overbroad and violation of free speech rights under the First Amendment. The case's decision was issued on June 14, 2018, with the Court finding 7–2 that the Minnesota law was overbroad of what could be considered "political" speech, violating free speech rights and deemed unconstitutional.

Timbs v. Indiana, 586 U.S. ___ (2019), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court considered whether the excessive fines clause of the Constitution's Eighth Amendment applies to state and local governments. The case covered the asset forfeiture of the petitioner's truck after the police found a small quantity of drugs within it and he was convicted on non-felony possession charges.

Knick v. Township of Scott, Pennsylvania, No. 17-647, 588 U.S. ___ (2019), was a case before the Supreme Court of the United States dealing with compensation for private property owners when the use of that property is taken from them by state or local governments, under the Due Process Clause and the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The immediate question asks if private land owners must exhaust all state-offered venues for mediation before seeking action in the federal courts. The case specifically addresses the Court's prior decision from the 1985 case Williamson County Regional Planning Commission v. Hamilton Bank of Johnson City, which had previously established that all state court venues must be exhausted first, but which has since resulted in several split decisions among circuit courts. The Supreme Court ruled in June 2019 to overturn part of Williamson County that required state venue action be taken first, allowing taking-compensation cases to be brought directly to federal court.

Barr v. American Assn. of Political Consultants, Inc., 591 U.S. ___ (2020), was a United States Supreme Court case involving the use of robocalls made to cell phones, a practice that had been banned by the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (TCPA), but which exemptions had been made by a 2015 amendment for government debt collection. The case was brought by the American Association of Political Consultants, an industry trade group, and others that desired to use robocalls to make political ads, challenging the exemption unconstitutionally favored debt collection speech over political speech. The Supreme Court, in a complex plurality decision, ruled on July 6, 2020, that the 2015 amendment to the TCPA did unconstitutionally favor debt collection speech over political speech and violated the First Amendment.

United States v. Vaello Madero, 596 U.S. ___ (2022), was a United States Supreme Court case related to the constitutionality of the exclusion of United States citizens residing in Puerto Rico from the Supplemental Security Income program. In an 8–1 decision, the Court ruled that as Congress had been granted broad oversight of United States territories by Article Four of the United States Constitution, the exclusion of the territories by Congress from programs like Supplemental Security Income did not violate the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.

References

1 2 "Supreme Court takes up property 'theft' dispute over unpaid taxes". NBC News. January 13, 2023.
1 2 "High court takes 8 new cases, 1 about a religious mailman". AP News. January 13, 2023.
↑ Martin, Christina (April 21, 2023). "Opinion | The Supreme Court Takes Up 'Home-Equity Theft'". Wall Street Journal. Retrieved April 21, 2023.
↑ "Slip Opinion" (PDF).

External links

Text of Tyler v. Hennepin County, 598 U.S. 631(2023) is available from: Justia Oyez (oral argument audio) Supreme Court (slip opinion) Supreme Court (preliminary print)

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.

[nbc-certiorari-1] 1 2 "Supreme Court takes up property 'theft' dispute over unpaid taxes". NBC News. January 13, 2023.

[ap-certiorari-2] 1 2 "High court takes 8 new cases, 1 about a religious mailman". AP News. January 13, 2023.

[3] Martin, Christina (April 21, 2023). "Opinion | The Supreme Court Takes Up 'Home-Equity Theft'". Wall Street Journal. Retrieved April 21, 2023.

[4] "Slip Opinion" (PDF).

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]