October Term 2022 · Docket 22-166

Does the Constitution require the government to return excess value from a tax sale?

A homeowner argues the government must pay for extra value taken during a tax sale. The county argues tax sales are not takings.

Official caption
Tyler v. Hennepin County
Latest argument session
Latest official Court activity
Latest verified event
Decided
Sources analyzed through
Post Opinion

Verified source milestones

  1. — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
  2. — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
  3. — An official Court opinion 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.

  1. Argument 1 ·

    What happened at the argument

    Ms. Martin argued the government must return or pay for excess value taken to satisfy a debt.

    Ms. Ross argued taxes are not takings and the government may seize property to recoup owed money.

    Mr. Katyal argued the side that brought the case lacks standing and the lower court opinion should stand.

    Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details

    Sources used for this argument breakdown

A citizen's guide to the whole case

What this case is about

Geraldine Tyler owed $15,000 in taxes and penalties. Hennepin County sold her home to collect that debt. She claims the government took more value than it owed. The county says tax sales are not takings. The Court must decide if the Fifth Amendment applies here.

Official sources for this section

How the case got here

The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on April 26, 2023.

Official sources for this section

What each side wants

Tyler wants the Court to require the government to pay for excess value taken during a tax sale.

Hennepin County wants the Court to confirm that tax sales are not takings under the Constitution.

Official sources for this section

What each side says

Tyler argues the government has a constitutional duty to return or pay for any excess value taken to satisfy a debt.

Hennepin County argues that taxes are not takings and the government may seize property to recoup owed money.

Official sources for this section

What the justices asked

Chief Justice Roberts asked what defines property if state law does not.

Justice Barrett asked if a conditional redemption statute would satisfy the Fifth Amendment under prior precedent.

Official sources for this section

Why it matters

This case determines whether homeowners receive compensation for excess value taken during tax sales. It clarifies the scope of the Fifth Amendment's protection against government takings. The outcome affects how states conduct tax sales and protect property rights.

Official sources for this section

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 Court provenance

Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page

Verified official opinions and orders

Title and summary sources

Revision history

  1. Revision 1 · Post Opinion ·

    Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.

  2. Revision 2 · Post Opinion ·

    Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.

Download this sanitized case as JSON