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
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.