Rule of Law

RELEASE: Justices Grapple with Constitutional Implications of Hennepin County’s Tax Forfeiture Scheme

WASHINGTON, DC – Following oral argument at the Supreme Court in Tyler v. Hennepin County, a case in which the Court is considering whether the government’s seizure of a property worth far more than needed to satisfy a debt violates the Constitution’s Excessive Fines Clause or Takings Clause, Constitutional Accountability Center Appellate Counsel Miriam Becker-Cohen issued the following reaction:

In this morning’s oral argument, the Justices appeared troubled by Hennepin County’s assertion that the Constitution places no limits on its ability to take absolute title to a property worth $40,000 to satisfy a 94-year-old woman’s $15,000 debt of unpaid property taxes, interest, and fees.

Although most of the argument focused on whether this scheme violates the Takings Clause, several Justices asked important questions related to the Excessive Fines Clause.  Importantly, those questions focused on whether the statutory scheme relied on by Hennepin County serves in part to punish.

As we explained in our brief, the history of the Excessive Fines Clause, as well as Supreme Court precedents, make clear that even an extraction that serves primarily remedial purposes still constitutes a “fine” within the meaning of the Eighth Amendment if it is partially punitive. Echoing this point, Justice Gorsuch rightly noted that the district court’s reasoning—concluding that Hennepin County’s scheme was not a fine because its “primary purpose was to compensate”—simply “doesn’t line up under our case law.”

The Court should reach the Excessive Fines Clause issue and hold that the courts below got it wrong. Doing so will help ensure that the Excessive Fines Clause can continue to play its important role in guarding against government abuse and overreach.

##

Resources:

Case page in Tyler v. Hennepin County: https://www.theusconstitution.org/litigation/tyler-v-hennepin-county/ 

##

Constitutional Accountability Center is a nonpartisan think tank and public interest law firm dedicated to fulfilling the progressive promise of the Constitution’s text, history, and values. Visit CAC’s website at www.theusconstitution.org.

###

More from Rule of Law

Rule of Law
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

Jackler v. Merit Systems Protection Board

In Jackler v. Merit Systems Protection Board, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit is considering whether the Trump administration can ignore critical civil service laws when removing Immigration Judges.
Rule of Law
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York

Comey v. Department of Justice

In Comey v. Department of Justice, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York is considering whether the Attorney General can fire an Assistant U.S. Attorney in contravention of legal protections...
Rule of Law
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

DHS Probationary Employees 1 Class v. Department of Homeland Security

In DHS Probationary Employees 1 Class v. Department of Homeland Security, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit is considering whether the Trump Administration’s efforts to unilaterally reshape the federal government through...
Rule of Law
July 10, 2026

July Newsletter: The Legacy of the Declaration of Independence Belongs to We the People

Rule of Law
July 7, 2026

CAC Release: DOJ Under Todd Blanche Fails to Disclose Epstein Files (Again)

WASHINGTON, DC – In response to the Trump administration’s failure to disclose the Epstein files...
By: Praveen Fernandes
Rule of Law
July 4, 2026

Why Would President Trump Want to Celebrate the Declaration of Independence?

Common Dreams
CAC Vice President Praveen Fernandes wrote an op-ed for Common Dreams explaining the similarities between...
By: Praveen Fernandes