Rule of Law

D.C. Memo: Minnesota lawmakers at the center of GOP debt-relief bill drama

A 94-year-old Minnesota woman gets her day in court

The Supreme Court this week seems inclined to agree with a with a 94-year-old woman who said Hennepin County unfairly kept the equity she had in a condominium after the county sold it for back taxes.

The justices heard oral arguments in Tyler v. Hennepin County, a case brought by property rights advocates who say the state’s forfeiture law is unconstitutional.

During the lengthy oral arguments on Wednesday, both conservative and liberal justices seemed to agree.

“Are there any limits?” Justice Elena Kagan asked. “I mean, $5,000 tax debt, $5 million house. Take the house, don’t give back the rest?”

Geraldine Tyler lived for a decade in a one-bedroom condominium in Hennepin County. But she moved out of her home in 2010, while in her 80s, to live in an apartment in a senior community. While she lived in her condo, she paid her property taxes in a timely fashion. But after she left, she stopped paying those taxes.

By 2015, Tyler’s delinquent property taxes totaled $2,311, and penalties, costs and interest added an additional $12,689, for a total property-tax debt of $15,000. Hennepin County eventually seized Tyler’s condo and sold it for $40,000, keeping all the proceeds from the sale.

Minnesota and nine other states allow the sale of property for back taxes without compensating owners for the surplus “excess equity” that sale might generate. In most states, the surplus proceeds from such sales are returned to the owner.

The Supreme Court must now decide whether these states forfeiture laws violate the “takings” clause of the U.S. Constitution.

Tyler’s case attracted a broad coalition of ideological support of Tyler. Friend of the court briefs were filed by progressive groups, including the Constitutional Accountability Center and Public Citizen, as well as conservative, property rights advocates such as the Cato institute — which file its brief in conjunction with the American Civil Liberties Union – and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

Even the Biden administration weighted in on Tyler’s side.

More from Rule of Law

Rule of Law
September 8, 2024

Justice delayed is political: Trump’s election interference case must continue ahead of the election

Salon
The Supreme Court conservative majority’s opinion in Trump v. United States has rightly drawn considerable criticism.  Its...
By: Praveen Fernandes, Donald K. Sherman
Rule of Law
September 5, 2024

Reflections on my Kendall Fellowship

On my first day at the Constitutional Accountability Center, I worked on a brief about...
By: Jess Zalph
Rule of Law
September 2, 2024

Transgender rights, ghost guns, porn ID cases on Supreme Court docket; stakes high in next term

The Washington Times
The Supreme Court is still on its three-month summer recess but already has loaded its docket with...
By: Brianne J. Gorod, Alex Swoyer
Rule of Law
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

Iowa v. SEC

In Iowa v. SEC, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit is considering the legality of the Securities and Exchange Commission’s new climate-related disclosure requirements.
Rule of Law
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

Chamber of Commerce v. CFPB

In Chamber of Commerce v. CFPB, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit is considering the legality of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s update to its Examination Manual clarifying that discrimination may...
Rule of Law
U.S. Supreme Court

Lackey v. Stinnie

In Lackey v. Stinnie, the Supreme Court is considering when a civil rights plaintiff is entitled to attorney’s fees as the “prevailing party” in a case.