That was Chief Justice Roberts channeling his inner Milton Hirsch in Tyler v. Minnesota

From the conclusion:

The Takings Clause “was designed to bar Government from forcing some people alone to bear public burdens which, in all fairness and justice, should be borne by the public as a whole.” Armstrong, 364 U. S., at 49. 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. The taxpayer must render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s, but no more. Because we find that Tyler has plausibly alleged a taking under the Fifth Amendment, and she agrees that relief under “the Takings Clause would fully remedy [her] harm,” we need not decide whether she has also alleged an excessive fine under the Eighth Amendment. Tr. of Oral Arg. 27. The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit is reversed.

Meantime, the NY Times has this message for the Supreme Court:

The Supreme Court
will soon issue rulings, on affirmative action, student debt relief,
and the First Amendment and gay rights, that have the potential to
affect the American public for generations. And yet public approval of
the court is at a historic low. This was true even before the seemingly
endless stream of reports over the past few weeks about the justices’
lax ethics. Since a conservative supermajority took control of the court
in 2020, it has blown through the guardrails courts are expected to
observe — showing little respect for longstanding precedent, reaching
out to decide bigger questions than it was asked to and relying on a
secretive “shadow docket” to make hugely consequential rulings with no
public explanation.

Even Republicans
who are happy with the Supreme Court’s recent rulings are voicing their
concerns. “What I would urge the court to do is take this moment to
instill more public confidence,” Senator Lindsey Graham of South
Carolina said during the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on ethics at the Supreme Court on May 2. “I think we’d all be better off if they did that.”

Mr.
Graham is right: The nine justices — unelected and employed for life —
are shielded from the usual mechanisms of democratic accountability, and
so they depend on a high level of public trust like no other
institution of American government. Their failure to take the steps
necessary to restore that trust, steps that are entirely within their
control, is undermining their legitimacy as one of the country’s most
vital institutions.

Instead the
justices are behaving as though the same laws they interpret for
everyone else don’t apply to them. They’re not entirely wrong. In most
other government jobs, people can be fired for disregarding laws or
ethical obligations, but the justices can be confident that they will
face no consequences. Federal laws that explicitly apply to them —
involving, for example, financial disclosures and recusal standards —
are not enforced, leaving the justices to self-police, and the highest
court is not bound by a code of ethics as the lower federal courts are.