Tyler v. Hennepin County, Minnesota

-

Tyler v. Hennepin County, Minnesota

Unbiased Case Analysis:

            Geraldine Tyler owned a piece of property in Hennepin County, Minnesota. She failed to pay her property taxes, which eventually amounted to $15,000. The county eventually seized her property and sold it to pay off her property tax debt. However, they sold the property for $40,000 and kept the remaining $25,000. Geraldine Tyler sued the county arguing her 5th and 8th Amendment rights were violated by the county. The district court dismissed her case, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed the decision. Eventually, the Supreme Court heard the case and decided on it.

            The Supreme Courted ruled unanimously in favor of Tyler. The Court found that Hennepin County’s actions violated the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause. The Takings Clause requires the government to give just compensation when taking private property for public use. Hennepin County failed to adhere to giving Tyler “just compensation” when they kept all the money from selling the property. The 5th Amendment applies to states thanks to the 14th Amendment. Chief Justice John Roberts authored the unanimous opinion of the Court. Justice Neil Gorsuch authored a concurring opinion. He argued that Hennepin County’s actions likely violated the Eighth Amendment’s Excessive Fines Clause. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson joined him in the concurring opinion.

Personal Perspective:

            Overall, I agree with the Court’s decision in Tyler v. Hennepin County, Minnesota. Hennepin County’s actions were in clear violation of the Fifth Amendment. States and counties should not be able to violate citizens’ constitutional rights and keep more than was required to pay off property tax debt. This is a huge win for property rights in the United States. It is one less thing the government can do to overstep their power.

Media Critique and Analysis:

            This case received modest media attention from a variety of outlets. Overall, the case received bipartisan support from organizations, government officials and media outlets. Most people and organizations outside of Minnesota seemed to support Tyler and her fight against Hennepin County. Left leaning outlets such as ABC News supported the Court’s decision. Right leaning outlets such as Fox News also supported the Court’s decision. Not all outlets reported on Justice Neil Gorsuch’s concurring opinion.

Sources:

Tyler v. Hennepin County, Minnesota | Oyez

94-year-old grandmother gets big win at Supreme Court | Fox News

Minnesota County Had No Right to Confiscate Elderly Woman's Home Equity, Supreme Court Rules | National Review

Supreme Court sides with 94-year-old woman who accused government of stealing her home equity - ABC News


Comments

  1. Lin LApril 2, 2024 at 5:36 PM

    Property rights are a good political issue to get both sides of the aisle to rally around the flag. It is hard to imagine anyone would support a county government confiscating property for delinquent taxes and keeping monies in excess of the debt owed. Although the district court and Eight Circuit Court of Appeals failed to reconcile this wrong, at least the U.S. Supreme Court did. Further, this case law is now the law of the land, and no other property owner will face this type of issue. The irony in the entire case is Geraldine Tyler's property did net enough revenue for her to cover the delinquent tax debt. In Georgia, property lost to a tax lien can be reclaimed by the owner within a specific timeframe if other obligations are met.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Sarah BielskiApril 7, 2024 at 1:23 PM

    I like your blog Ian in that you demonstrably point to how these cases are determined by the Constitution. It aligns with a class I am taking this semester which is a headache to try to understand because my professor does not teach us anything. You explain it better than her absent lectures. What I have also learned from the cases I have solely reviewed for this class is that in most instances, the government is set up to look out for its own best interests instead of everyday American citizens. It is nice to read about a case where the government got caught for overreaching in their dominion and how the Supreme Court was able to rectify the situation in favor of Geraldine Tyler. This case will no doubt set the precedent moving forward.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Students for Fair Admissions v. President and Fellows of Harvard College

-
Image
  Students for Fair Admissions v. President and Fellows of Harvard College Unbiased case analysis:             Harvard College uses an admissions process that considers the race of applicants to determine whether they should be accepted or not. This is a common practice for many colleges in the United States. Harvard College was sued by Students for Fair Admissions over their use of affirmative action. Affirmative action is simply an action that helps specific demographic groups due to the United States’ history of discrimination. A district court ruled in favor of Harvard and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Frist Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision. The case was eventually brought before the Supreme Court. It was initially going to be consolidated with another case, but the Court chose to hear it individually.             The Court ruled 6-2 in favor of ...
Read more

Biden v. Nebraska

-
Image
Unbiased Case Analysis:             During his presidential run Joe Biden promised to cancel up to $10,000 of federal student loan debt per borrower. He kept his word and used executive action to enact his promise. Nebraska and five other states challenged Biden and his forgiveness program. They argued on the grounds that it violated the separation of powers and the Administrative Procedure Act. The district court and U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit dismissed the case. The Supreme Court stepped in to decide on it.             The Court decided 6-3 in favor of Nebraska. The Court found that the Secretary of education does not authority under the HEROES Act “…to establish a student loan forgiveness program that will cancel roughly $430 billion in dept principal and affect nearly all borrowers.” Most of the justices cited the major questions doctrine as their reaso...
Read more

Acheson Hotels, LLC v. Laufer

-
Image
For my first blog post I am going to examine one of the latest cases SCOTUS ruled on: Acheson Hotels, LLC v. Laufer. Unbiased Case Analysis: Deborah Laufer is a disabled woman who checks hotel websites to see if they provide accessibility information required under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). She sued Acheson Hotels after discovering one of their hotel websites failed to provide accessibility information. The district court dismissed her case since she did not plan to visit the hotel. Therefore, she would suffer no injury from the hotel’s lack of accessibility information. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reversed the district court’s decision determining that a lack of intent to visit the hotel did not excuse Laufer from injury. The Supreme Court of the United States agreed to hear the case and rule on it. The Court unanimously voted to vacate the case. The Court found the case to be moot which means it has lost its relevance which no longer neces...
Read more