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
July 25, 2024

USA: ‘The framers of the constitution envisioned an accountable president, not a king above the law’

CIVICUS
CIVICUS discusses the recent US Supreme Court ruling on presidential immunity and its potential impact...
By: Praveen Fernandes
Rule of Law
July 19, 2024

US Supreme Court is making it harder to sue – even for conservatives

Reuters
July 19 (Reuters) - Over its past two terms, the U.S. Supreme Court has put an end...
By: David H. Gans, Andrew Chung
Rule of Law
July 18, 2024

RELEASE: Sixth Circuit Panel Grapples with Effect of Supreme Court’s Loper Bright Decision on Title X Regulation

WASHINGTON, DC – Following oral argument at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth...
By: Miriam Becker-Cohen
Rule of Law
July 17, 2024

Family Planning Fight Poised to Test Scope of Chevron Rollback

Bloomberg Law
Justices made clear prior Chevron-based decisions would stand Interpretations of ambiguous laws no longer given deference...
By: Miriam Becker-Cohen, Mary Anne Pazanowski
Rule of Law
July 15, 2024

Not Above the Law Coalition On Judge Cannon Inappropriately Dismissing Classified Documents Case Against Trump

WASHINGTON — Today, following reports that Judge Aileen Cannon dismissed the classified documents case against...
By: Praveen Fernandes
Rule of Law
July 15, 2024

Federal judge dismisses Trump classified documents criminal case

Kansas Reflector
MILWAUKEE — The federal classified documents case against former President Donald Trump was dismissed Monday...
By: Praveen Fernandes, Ashley Murray