r/supremecourt • u/scotus-bot The Supreme Bot • May 25 '23
OPINION: Geraldine Tyler, Petitioner v. Hennepin County, Minnesota
| Caption | Geraldine Tyler, Petitioner v. Hennepin County, Minnesota |
|---|---|
| Summary | Petitioner Geraldine Tyler plausibly alleges that Hennepin County unconstitutionally retained the excess value of her home above her tax debt in violation of the Takings Clause. |
| Authors | |
| Opinion | http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/22-166_8n59.pdf |
| Certiorari | Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due September 22, 2022) |
| Amicus | Brief amicus curiae of United States supporting neither party filed. |
| Case Link | 22-166 |
4
May 25 '23 edited Sep 07 '23
[deleted]
4
u/Tunafishsam Law Nerd May 26 '23
This case seems obvious to many of us and to 9 justices. How the heck did it get booted at the trial level for failure to state a claim? That's like the easiest burden to satisfy, but both the trial court and the circuit court ruled against plaintiff. Anybody read the lower opinions to figure out what the heck they were thinking?
1
u/Justice-Gorsuch Justice Gorsuch May 26 '23
No idea. At oral argument Neal Katyal argued the same thing about a lack of claim. It was extremely odd because he’s usually so bright even if I disagree with him. He seemed to push the idea that there is a set of magic words to state claim and have standing rather than just the implicit basis of your lawsuit. You’d have to be deliberately obtuse to read the plaintiffs complaint and not understand the claim.
11
u/FearsomeOyster Justice Harlan May 25 '23 edited May 25 '23
No. That is the law of Minnesota specifically. Under Minnesota law, the liens are extinguished but the property owner is still personally liable for the debts. And regardless of that law, keeping the money from the homeowner still creates a pocketbook injury. The case does not technically address a situation where the State seeks to pay the creditors from the tax sale against the homeowners wishes.
Homeowners are always entitled to proceeds left after repayment, at least on paper. If the homeowner receives the surplus and needs to immediately pay it out to satisfy other creditors, the takings clause is not violated. The important bit is that the State cannot keep the remaining surplus without providing some mechanism for the homeowner to claim it, at least in this posture.
3
May 25 '23 edited Sep 07 '23
[deleted]
8
u/FearsomeOyster Justice Harlan May 25 '23
That doesn’t appear in the opinion so I’m not sure. Per the opinion, the County just kept it for itself, without regard to the outstanding debt obligations.
Minnesota passed a law in 1935 eliminating a homeowners rights in surplus equity following a tax sale. In other words, under Minnesota law, Tyler didn’t have a property interest at all, so there couldn’t be a taking and it could freely take the money to split up among the school district, municipality, and county.
This is, of course, absolutely ridiculous.
2
u/Pollymath May 25 '23
I wonder what the mortgage companies think about this?
It seems like there is an opening here for a few different arguments:
- Governments can't sell property for which there is a private lien.
- Governments must put the tax lien on the mortgage, then when the house goes to foreclosure, the sale pays the tax lien first.
- Instruments for which the tax lien is automatically factored into the monthly payment ie escrow, so if for example Tyler was still paying her mortgage, but not paying her taxes, her mortgage payment would go up to include those taxes.
- If the government, through a standing law, has the ability to sell property while passing all debt onto the property owner, then I can see a scenario in which banks start more aggressively pursuing the windfalls for loan repayment.
6
u/JustGrillinReally May 25 '23
I did not expect this to be 9-0.
2
u/Pblur Elizabeth Prelogar May 26 '23
Really? After listening to oral argument, it seemed inevitable. All the justices were very hostile to the Hennepin County claims, and were completely disinterested in the standing argument.
9
u/pinkycatcher Chief Justice Taft May 25 '23
| Judge | Majority | Concurrence | Dissent |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sotomayor | Join | ||
| Jackson | Join | Join | |
| Kagan | Join | ||
| Roberts | Writer | ||
| Kavanaugh | Join | ||
| Gorsuch | Join | Writer | |
| Barrett | Join | ||
| Alito | Join | ||
| Thomas | Join |
ROBERTS , C. J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court. GORSUCH, J., filed a concurring opinion, in which JACKSON, J., joined.
22
u/cbr777 New World Same Constitution May 25 '23
The Gorsuch concurrence is just a pile-on on the 8th Circuit and basically assassinated the District Court opinion.
19
u/Master-Thief Chief Justice John Marshall May 25 '23
I love the "did the Framers stutter?" bit at the end:
Economic penalties imposed to deter willful noncompliance with the law are fines by any other name. And the Constitution has something to say about them: They cannot be excessive.
7
21
u/phrique Justice Gorsuch May 25 '23
Second, the District Court asserted that the Minnesota tax-forfeiture scheme cannot “be punitive because it actually confers a windfall on the delinquent taxpayer when the value of the property that is forfeited is less than the amount of taxes owed.” 505 F. Supp. 3d, at 896. That observation may be factually true, but it is legally irrelevant. Some prisoners better themselves behind bars; some addicts credit court-ordered rehabilitation with saving their lives. But punishment remains punishment all the same. See Tr. of Oral Arg. 61. Of course, no one thinks that an individual who profits from an economic penalty has a winning excessive-fines claim. But nor has this Court ever held that a scheme producing fines that punishes some individuals can escape constitutional scrutiny merely because it does not punish others.
I thought this was particularly well put, although I honestly really enjoy the way he writes.
25
u/Justice-Gorsuch Justice Gorsuch May 25 '23
Another Gorsuch/Jackson concurrence!
15
5
u/ilikedota5 Law Nerd May 25 '23
Are you much happier about Justice Jackson compared to Justice Breyer, especially in light of you roasting him 2 years ago here?
4
u/vman3241 Justice Black May 25 '23
Breyer was in favor of some bad balancing tests in many cases.
2
u/ilikedota5 Law Nerd May 25 '23
I know he likes balancing tests in general, but I cannot recall any particularly egregious ones.
1
u/vman3241 Justice Black May 26 '23
I think the example that first comes to mind is Giles v. California(2008). He tried balancing the Confrontation Clause & Crawford with times that hearsay from innocent victims would be excluded.
Scalia and Breyer actually discussed it here: https://www.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/comments/y9c30m/scalia_breyer_discuss_importance_of_confrontation/
9
u/Justice-Gorsuch Justice Gorsuch May 25 '23
I certainly prefer the way she asks questions
9
u/Longjumping_Gain_807 Chief Justice John Roberts May 25 '23
To me she sounds like she’s trying to give them a chance to convince her. And when people have really dumb points like Blatt in the Jack Daniel’s case she is trying really hard to understand it even if she is struggling to agree or find common ground
2
u/DogNamedMyris Justice Scalia May 25 '23
How so?
10
u/MaizeAndBruin May 25 '23
Breyer used to do long rambling questions that didn't actually illustrate anything. I groaned any time he started asking a question.
1
2
u/ilikedota5 Law Nerd May 25 '23
Is there anyone you wouldn't say that about?
6
u/Justice-Gorsuch Justice Gorsuch May 25 '23
In relation to Breyer? Probably not. It doesn’t color my entire opinion of Breyer, but he wasted a lot of time in oral arguments.
Major kudos to Justice Kagan though. She’s the best at asking clear, concise questions.
9
u/pinkycatcher Chief Justice Taft May 25 '23
Major kudos to Justice Kagan though. She’s the best at asking clear, concise questions.
And she's sharp, you can tell she almost always understands the argument everyone is making and can get to the root of it. Breyer heard what he wanted to hear and asked questions to get the answer he wanted to hear, Sotomayor doesn't keep up with the arguments as well as Kagan and she baits answers she wants to hear and either softballs or strawmans the person answering. Kagan is awesome.
I might have a crush on Kagan, don't tell my wife.
8
u/ilikedota5 Law Nerd May 25 '23 edited May 25 '23
I mean its a common trend here that Kagan is the favorite left leaning Justice for the more right leaning people here. Scalia even used backchannels to say to put her on the bench. She did a great job of translating Breyer's hypothetical into English.
4
u/chi-93 SCOTUS May 26 '23
Her opinions are very easy (relatively) to read as well. I also like the fact that she doesn’t personally write concurrences or dissents very often, but when she does she goes hard and properly pinpoints any errors made by the majority.
15
May 25 '23
Not OP, but maybe Sotomayor treating every question like either witness rehabilitation or impeachment.
11
u/Longjumping_Gain_807 Chief Justice John Roberts May 25 '23
I think we can all agree that Sotomayor is the worst out of all the current justices
1
u/arbivark Justice Fortas May 26 '23
nope. i often disagree with her, but she has a good bullshit detector when the prosecution is screwing some poor criminal defendant.
11
May 25 '23
[deleted]
18
u/Texasduckhunter Justice Scalia May 25 '23
Jackson is more libertarian than Kagan. Kagan is an institutionalist who tends toward affirming exercises of government power. Jackson appears to be more skeptical—something she shares with Gorsuch.
6
u/SimianAmerican May 25 '23
Could that be a natural extension of her experience as a defense attorney?
5
u/Texasduckhunter Justice Scalia May 25 '23
Yes, and even moreso because she was a federal public defender given the culture in most of those offices.
8
u/ROSRS Justice Gorsuch May 25 '23 edited May 25 '23
In my experience you'll rarely find anyone more skeptical of government's supposed benevolence than a public defender
I had a prof who used to be a public defender, who did a whole class lecture on something like half a dozen cases he personally was involved with where some level of the government or the prosecution knowingly withheld, ignored or obfuscated potentially exculpatory evidence.
3
u/vman3241 Justice Black May 25 '23
he personally was involved with where some level of the government or the prosecution knowingly withheld, ignored or obfuscated potentially exculpatory evidence.
It's crazy how many such 4A, 5A, and 6A cases there are that come to SCOTUS where the prosecution is acting really really sketchy.
There was a Confrontation Clause case last term, Hemphill v. New York, where the prosecution was extremely sketchy. There was a murder in the Bronx where the victim was killed with a 9mm. The police find a 9mm cartridge and ammo for a .357 magnum in a suspect's house. The trial ends in a mistral, and the prosecution offers the suspect a plea deal where the murder charge is dismissed with prejudice in exchange for the suspect agreeing that he illegally possessed a .357 magnum. Then, the prosecutors charge another suspect with this murder, and this other suspect mentions at trial that the police found a 9mm cartridge at the initial suspect's house. In response, the prosecutor introduces the statement from the initial suspect's plea deal that he possessed a .357 magnum in order to contradict this statement. He was then convicted. Thankfully, SCOTUS found a Confrontation violation, but boy was this a sketchy case.
Another case that comes to mind is Bullcoming v. New Mexico (2011). Scalia even remarked in oral arguments that the case "smelled really bad".
4
May 25 '23
Honestly, it makes sense that she is skeptical of government considering her background as a public defender
4
May 25 '23
Honestly I am glad that she brings that experience to the court. I feel like justice im many cases just do not fathom how shady and downright malicious prosecutors and police can be, and how widespread it is, because they do not experience it themselves due to running in different circles and because of who they are. But Jackson has surely seen it firsthand and can bring up actual examples when they discuss cases together.
2
May 25 '23 edited May 29 '23
Yep. I'm a big believer of diversity and that's not just something that relates to the groups that it often is associated with but also education, background, etc. I think it does a big disservice to only focus on one form when everyone is shaped by their lived experiences, regardless of who they are.
14
u/savagemonitor Court Watcher May 25 '23
I've heard her described as a liberal originalist. If that really is the case then by default she will be the most conservative of the liberal justices.
7
7
28
u/ROSRS Justice Gorsuch May 25 '23 edited May 25 '23
Good ruling, nothing else to say
Retaining excess value above what is owed for literally no reason other than the homeowner might profit from the debts being cancelled is a clear violation of the takings clause.
13
u/SilasX May 25 '23
Yeah. Layperson here, just saw this. I'm scratching my head about how this went to the Supreme Court when it was such an obvious abuse. She must have gotten two courts to rule against her before it got to this point. What am I missing?
1
u/arbivark Justice Fortas May 26 '23
excessive fines clause incorporation is brand new and courts don't have it figured out yet. timbs v indiana.
government usually gets away with takings. kelo is an example. so i'm not shocked. courts routinely rubberstamp government abuses of power.
4
u/redditthrowaway1294 Justice Gorsuch May 25 '23
I think the idea was that the homeowner "profited" even beyond the amount the government sold the house for due to having all their debts on the property nulled and so the additional revenue the government received was actually less than the homeowner's "profit".
4
u/savagemonitor Court Watcher May 25 '23
There was a previous discussion about this case on this sub that discussed why non-payment of property taxes wasn't considered a violation of the takings clause. Obviously that discussion is no longer correct but could be informative if you can find it.
4
u/SilasX May 25 '23 edited May 25 '23
Huh? No one's disputing that the county had the right to seize the condo to cover the tax debt[1], only whether they had the right to keep the excess after selling it.
[1] Fine, fine, except for hardcore libertarians.
22
u/Justice_R_Dissenting Justice Thurgood Marshall May 25 '23
Wow, I appreciate the dedication required to carry a case from a 12b6 bounce out, to a CoA affirmation, only to then finally win at SCOTUS which uses the word "obviously" in their opinion.
0
•
u/AutoModerator May 25 '23
Welcome to /r/SupremeCourt. This subreddit is for serious, high-quality discussion about the Supreme Court.
We encourage everyone to read our community guidelines before participating, as we actively enforce these standards to promote civil and substantive discussion. Rule breaking comments will be removed.
Meta discussion regarding r/SupremeCourt must be directed to our dedicated meta thread.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.