Here is what we’re reading today, comments and thoughts on yesterday’s U.S. Supreme Court decision in Pung v. Isabella County:
Billy Binion, “The Government Seized Their $195,000 Home Over a $2,242 Debt. What Does the Supreme Court Say They’re Owed?” (Reason) (“Neither the Fifth nor the Eighth Amendment requires the government to compensate former owners based on the hypothetical fair market value of their property.” But the Pungs are not necessarily without hope. Emphasis on fairly conducted. “Just compensation ordinarily requires paying the owner the fair market value of his property,” notes Justice Clarence Thomas in a concurrence.”)
Ilya Somin, “Supreme Court Issues Terrible Takings Decision in Pung v. Isabella County“ (Volokh Conspiracy) (“Today, the Supreme Court issued a terrible Takings Clause decision in Pung v. Isabella County. It’s the worst Supreme Court takings decision in a long time, and perpetuates the Court’s tradition of issuing awful property rights decisions on June 23 (which is the anniversary of Kelo v. City of New London). The ruling is unanimous, albeit with a concurring opinion by Justice Thomas, joined by Gorsuch, which is really more of a dissent.”)
Ilya Somin, “Fair Market Value Compensation for Takings is Often too Little, not too Much“ (Volokh Conspiracy) (“Fair market value often fails to fully compensate property owners for their losses. This makes the Supreme Court’s recent decision allowing compensation below fair market value even worse.”)
Peyton Rhodes, “High Court’s Compensation Ruling Addresses Few Tax Sale Issues“ (Bloomberg Tax) (“The US Supreme Court’s recent decision defining just compensation for former homeowners who lose property at a foreclosure sale is likely just the next step in clarifying constitutional tax sale practices, according to attorneys and interest groups.”)
Ronald Mann, “Justices reject constitutional attack on foreclosure rules” (SCOTUSblog) (“The case is unlikely to make any great jurisprudential splash, as it validates what has been a common practice of all levels of government in this country for almost three centuries. Perhaps more notable is the concurrence of Justice Clarence Thomas, joined in part by Justice Neil Gorsuch. He makes two points, the first of which is the conclusion that the Michigan courts erred under Michigan law in concluding that Pung in fact owes any taxes – a question neither presented to nor decided in the lower court.”)
Stephen L. Carter, “The Supreme Court Just Undercut Homeowners” (Bloomberg) (“Put otherwise, the city has in effect charged you $50,000 to pay off a $1,000 debt. Tough luck, says the Supreme Court. And, just to be clear, the justices were unanimous on
this point. Nevertheless, the result is wrong — and wrong in ways that are important in the relationship of a government to the people it exists to serve.”)
Kelly Phillips Erb “Supreme Court Rejects Fair Market Value In Tax Sale Case, But Keeps Challenge Alive” (Forbes) (“The ruling is a mixed result for the Pungs. The Supreme Court ruled that the auction price is the baseline for compensation but sent the question of whether the sale was fair back to the lower court.”)
Maureen Groppe, “Supreme Court lets Michigan family fight foreclosure in equity theft case“ (USA Today) (“The Supreme Court on June 23 gave a Michigan family another chance to fight back after their home was sold by the government for about 40% of its value to pay a relatively small tax bill. The justices sent the case back to the lower courts to consider whether the family can challenge the fairness of the way the government sold their home in foreclosure.”)
Stay tuned, more to come including our own thoughts.