October Term 2025 · Docket 25-95

When a County Keeps a Home's Extra Sale Money After a Tax Foreclosure. Does the Constitution Require the Homeowner to Get the Home's Full Market Value or Only the Leftover Amount?

A Michigan homeowner lost his house over unpaid taxes. The county sold it and kept the entire sale price. The homeowner says the Constitution entitles him to more than the small surplus left after the debt.

Official caption
Pung v. Isabella 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.
  4. — 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

    Pung's lawyer welcomed the county's concession that a taking occurred, narrowing the dispute to how much compensation is owed.

    Chief Justice Roberts asked whether a fair open-market sale is the proper way to determine the property's value.

    Justice Kagan observed that the county's lawyer appeared to agree foreclosure sales generally do not yield fair market prices.

    Justice Alito asked whether the homeowner could have borrowed against the home's equity to pay the taxes and avoid the sale.

    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

Isabella County foreclosed on Kevin Pung's home for unpaid taxes. The county sold the property and kept all the proceeds. Pung says the county took his home and must pay its full market value. The county says he is owed only the surplus left after his tax debt.

Official sources for this section

How the case got here

A Michigan court allowed the foreclosure. The county sold the home and kept the proceeds. Pung appealed, and the Sixth Circuit ruled against him. The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case.

Official sources for this section

What each side wants

Pung argues the county took his home, so the Constitution requires paying its full market value, not just the leftover money.

Isabella County argues a fair foreclosure sale settles the debt, so the homeowner is entitled only to the surplus proceeds.

Official sources for this section

What each side says

Pung's lawyer says history supports paying full market value when a home sells for more than the debt owed.

The county's lawyer says a fair sale process satisfies the Constitution, and the surplus is the just payment.

Official sources for this section

What the justices asked

Chief Justice Roberts asked what is wrong with using an open-market sale to learn the property's true value.

Justice Kagan noted the county's lawyer seemed to agree that foreclosure sales generally do not produce fair market prices.

Official sources for this section

Why it matters

The ruling could shape how much money homeowners receive when governments sell their property to collect unpaid taxes, and whether foreclosure sales must reflect market value.

Official sources for this section

What the Court decided

The Supreme Court held that just compensation after a fairly conducted tax sale is measured by the auction sale price, not the property's fair market value. The Court also held that such a tax sale does not violate the Eighth Amendment ban on excessive fines.

The Supreme Court vacated the Sixth Circuit's judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings.

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 · Official Transcript ·

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

  2. Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·

    Correction: Removed an unsupported statement that the Court had not ruled; the available source set did not establish that absence.

  3. Revision 3 · Official Transcript ·

    Correction: Corrected unsupported no-ruling language and clarified that the article's disposition summary is incomplete.

  4. Revision 4 · Post Opinion ·

    Correction: Added the holding and disposition from the verified official Court opinion.

  5. Revision 5 · Post Opinion ·

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

Download this sanitized case as JSON