October Term 2005 · Docket 04-1477
Does due process require states to investigate failed tax sale notices?
The dispute centers on whether a state must investigate why a mailed notice failed before selling property for unpaid taxes.
Verified source milestones
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
The arguments, in order
This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.
Argument 1 ·
What happened at the argument
the side that brought the case argued that due process requires notice efforts conforming to what a reasonable person would do.
the side that brought the case stated that providing the best notice is in the state's interest for efficient tax collection.
the opposing side argued that the notice provided satisfied the reasonably calculated test for due process.
the opposing side noted that the state sent the notice by certified mail to the last known address.
Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details
Sources used for this argument breakdown
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 27-41 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 27-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 37-37 — Transcript, file page 26, lines 37-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 15-47 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 15-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 49-7 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 49-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-13 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 5-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 29-31 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 29-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 35-47 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 35-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 48, lines 9-37 — Transcript, file page 48, lines 9-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 31-31 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 31-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 35-37 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 35-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 41-45 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 41-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 58, lines 37-7 — Transcript, file page 58, lines 37-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 33-43 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 33-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 60, lines 9-19 — Transcript, file page 60, lines 9-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 62, lines 5-7 — Transcript, file page 62, lines 5-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 15-43 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 15-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 35-54 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 35-54
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 5-9 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 5-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 7-21 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 7-21
A citizen's guide to the whole case
What this case is about
This case tests the limits of state notice duties. the side that brought the case argues the state must investigate failed mailings. the opposing side argues the state met its duty by mailing to the last known address.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 37-37 — Transcript, file page 26, lines 37-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 15-47 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 15-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 48, lines 9-37 — Transcript, file page 48, lines 9-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 58, lines 37-7 — Transcript, file page 58, lines 37-7
How the case got here
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on January 17, 2006.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-13 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 5-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 62, lines 5-7 — Transcript, file page 62, lines 5-7
What each side wants
the side that brought the case wants the Court to require states to investigate failed notices before selling property.
the opposing side wants the Court to hold that mailing to the last known address satisfies due process.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 37-37 — Transcript, file page 26, lines 37-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 15-47 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 15-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 48, lines 9-37 — Transcript, file page 48, lines 9-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 58, lines 37-7 — Transcript, file page 58, lines 37-7
What each side says
the side that brought the case argues due process requires notice efforts that a reasonable person would use to ensure receipt.
the opposing side argues the state satisfied the constitutional test by sending notice via certified mail to the known address.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 37-37 — Transcript, file page 26, lines 37-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 15-47 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 15-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 48, lines 9-37 — Transcript, file page 48, lines 9-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 58, lines 37-7 — Transcript, file page 58, lines 37-7
What the justices asked
Justice Scalia questioned whether sending notice to a known address denies due process if it fails.
Justice Ginsburg asked how much the owner owed and whether other recipients failed to receive letters.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 27-41 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 27-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 49-7 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 49-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 29-31 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 29-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 35-47 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 35-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 31-31 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 31-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 35-37 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 35-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 41-45 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 41-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 33-43 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 33-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 60, lines 9-19 — Transcript, file page 60, lines 9-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 62, lines 5-7 — Transcript, file page 62, lines 5-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 15-43 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 15-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 35-54 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 35-54
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 5-9 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 5-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 7-21 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 7-21
Why it matters
This case defines the minimum steps states must take to protect property owners from tax sales. It balances state efficiency against individual rights to notice. The outcome shapes how governments handle failed communications in property disputes.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 37-37 — Transcript, file page 26, lines 37-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 15-47 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 15-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 48, lines 9-37 — Transcript, file page 48, lines 9-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 58, lines 37-7 — Transcript, file page 58, lines 37-7
What happens next
This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 27-41 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 27-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 49-7 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 49-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-13 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 5-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 29-31 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 29-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 35-47 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 35-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 31-31 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 31-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 35-37 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 35-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 41-45 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 41-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 33-43 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 33-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 60, lines 9-19 — Transcript, file page 60, lines 9-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 62, lines 5-7 — Transcript, file page 62, lines 5-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 15-43 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 15-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 35-54 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 35-54
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 5-9 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 5-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 7-21 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 7-21
Official Court provenance
Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page
Title and summary sources
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 37-37 — Transcript, file page 26, lines 37-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 15-47 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 15-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 48, lines 9-37 — Transcript, file page 48, lines 9-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 58, lines 37-7 — Transcript, file page 58, lines 37-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 37-37 — Transcript, file page 26, lines 37-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 15-47 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 15-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 48, lines 9-37 — Transcript, file page 48, lines 9-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 58, lines 37-7 — Transcript, file page 58, lines 37-7
Revision history
- Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.
- Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.