Rule of Law

Minnesota County Had No Right to Confiscate Elderly Woman’s Home Equity, Supreme Court Rules

The Supreme Court has ruled in favor of the plaintiff in Tyler v. Hennepin County, finding that county officials violated the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment by seizing not only back taxes owed by an elderly home owner but also the equity she had accumulated in her condo.

The case centers around Geraldine Tyler, a 94-year-old woman, whose $40,000 home was seized by Hennepin County, Minn., due to $15,000 in unpaid taxes and fees. However, after the sale of the property, local officials kept the surplus $25,000 profit instead of returning the funds to Tyler.

“A taxpayer who loses her $40,000 house to the State to fulfill a $15,000 tax debt has made a far greater contribution to the public fisc than she owed,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in a majority opinion published on Thursday. “The taxpayer must render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s, but no more.”

The county argued that, under state law, Tyler forfeited her remaining home equity and that the state did not seize the property, to begin with.

“This dangerous argument would give states carte blanche to define away property interests and violate the Fifth Amendment with impunity. States should not be allowed to so easily circumvent a core constitutional protection,” legal scholars Thomas A. Berry and Isiah McKinney, who submitted an amicus brief to the Court on Tyler’s behalf, wrote in National Review last month.

The case was notable for the bipartisan support Tyler received. As the legal scholar, Ilya Shapiro, summarized in late April for the Washington Examiner:

Progressive groups such as the Constitutional Accountability Center are aligned with conservative groups such as the Claremont Institute’s Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence. The American Civil Liberties Union is on a brief with the Cato Institute. The National Taxpayers Union Foundation, AARP, Chamber of Commerce, National Association of Home Builders, National Association of Realtors, National Consumer Law Center, and Public Citizen have all weighed in to help Tyler, as have disability advocates and four of Minnesota’s congressional representatives. Hennepin County, meanwhile, is supported mainly by state and municipal governments and related associations.

Meanwhile, the justices avoided weighing in on the case’s potential impact on the Eighth Amendment’s protections against the “Excessive Fines Clause,” given that their first ruling resolved Tyler’s core grievance.

“Because we find that Tyler has plausibly alleged a taking under the Fifth Amendment, and she agrees that relief un- der ‘the Takings Clause would fully remedy [her] harm,’ we need not decide whether she has also alleged an excessive fine under the Eighth Amendment.”

More from Rule of Law

Rule of Law
November 15, 2025

Justice Jackson goes ‘her own way’ in Supreme Court’s SNAP fight

CNN
As she oversaw President Donald Trump’s emergency Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, case this...
Rule of Law
November 5, 2025

What’s at stake for Trump with Supreme Court tariff case?

Canadian Broadcasting Corporation
Elizabeth Wydra, a lawyer and president of the Constitutional Accountability Center, says the stakes for...
Rule of Law
November 5, 2025

CAC Release: Supreme Court Considers Presidential Authority to Impose Tariffs Under Emergency Powers Law

WASHINGTON, DC – Following oral argument at the Supreme Court this morning in Learning Resources...
Rule of Law
November 4, 2025

The other arguments in Trump’s tariffs case

SCOTUS Blog
When the Supreme Court hears oral arguments on Wednesday in the challenges to the tariffs that President...
Rule of Law
November 3, 2025

A SCOTUS Bench Memo for the Trump Tariff Case: Separation of Powers, Delegation, Emergencies, and Pretext

Just Security
Soon after taking office, President Donald Trump invoked the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act...
Rule of Law
U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit

Appalachian Voices v. Environmental Protection Agency

In Appalachian Voices v. Environmental Protection Agency, the United States of Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit is considering whether the Trump administration can unilaterally terminate an entire mandatory grant program created by Congress.