The Supreme Court is hearing its last scheduled oral argument for the current term, in a case involving a 94-year-old woman's home in Minnesota. The trial could have wide-ranging effects on home equity theft and the way that at least a dozen states repurchase people's houses.
What is the case about?
Hennepin County eventually seized Tyler's old condo, and NPR notes that "Tyler does not dispute that the county repeatedly notified her that she risked losing the condo if she didn't pay up." After the seizure, the county sold the condo for $40,000. However, the county kept not only the $15,000 that Tyler owed, but also the $25,000 left over, leaving Tyler with nothing.
The Week
Escape your echo chamber. Get the facts behind the news, plus analysis from multiple perspectives.
Sign up for The Week's Free Newsletters
From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.
From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.
Despite Tyler's objections, this string of events is legal in Minnesota — at least for now. This is because, when it comes to collecting government debts, Minnesota and other states are allowed to keep the profits they receive from a tax surplus, Forbes notes. As a result, Tyler sued Hennepin County, arguing that she should have received the $25,000 difference.
The Pacific Legal Foundation (PLF), which represents Tyler, argues that by keeping the full amount, Hennepin County unconstitutionally seized her property. They call this phenomenon "home equity theft." In states where this is legal, "if a property owner fails to pay or underpays his property taxes, even by just a few dollars, the local government or a private lienholder can eventually take the entire property, along with the owner's equity," PLF reports, even though the equity is typically worth much more than the debt itself.
How do the justices feel about the case?
Justices are routinely stoic during oral arguments, so it can often be hard to gauge their opinions on a particular case. However, signs seem to point to the Supreme Court swinging toward Tyler's success, based on eyewitnesses who were in the room.
The nine justices seemed to be in "broad favor" of Tyler's argument, and even conservative Justice Clarence Thomas said she was "saying the county took her property and made a profit on her surplus equity. It belongs to her," Supreme Court correspondent Mark Sherman reports for The Associated Press. Sherman notes that Justices Elena Kagan and Neil Gorsuch, despite being on opposite sides of the ideological spectrum, said Hennepin County seemed to think it could seize million-dollar properties over small tax bills.
"I mean, $5,000 tax debt; $5 million house. Take the house; don't give back the rest?" Kagan hypothetically asked the county's attorney, who essentially confirmed the justice's question.
The justices all seemed "receptive" to Tyler's argument, adds Supreme Court reporter Lawrence Hurley for NBC News. Hurley writes that the justices seemed to question the merit of limiting government power when they could seize property without giving back a surplus. "The Constitution seemed to have a different idea in mind," Chief Justice John Roberts said. The newest member of the Court, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, questioned whether there would even be a "real, big, practical problem" in siding with Tyler.
What's next?
The Supreme Court's decision is not expected to be released until this coming summer. However, given the justice's questioning during oral arguments, it seems likely, though not certain, that they will find in favor of Tyler.
This could potentially impact the legality of this type of home equity practice in states where it is currently legal. These laws "can have a big impact on seniors struggling to pay property taxes after retirement," USA Today writes. With the justices seemingly concerned with the state law, a potential ruling in favor of Tyler could end up forcing changes to the way that states are able to buy back property.
-
Political cartoons for November 30Cartoons Sunday's political cartoons include the Saudi-China relationship, MAGA spelled wrong, and more
-
Rothermere’s Telegraph takeover: ‘a right-leaning media powerhouse’Talking Point Deal gives Daily Mail and General Trust more than 50% of circulation in the UK newspaper market
-
The US-Saudi relationship: too big to fail?Talking Point With the Saudis investing $1 trillion into the US, and Trump granting them ‘major non-Nato ally’ status, for now the two countries need each other
-
The ‘Kavanaugh stop’Feature Activists say a Supreme Court ruling has given federal agents a green light to racially profile Latinos
-
Supreme Court to decide on mail-in ballot limitsSpeed Read The court will determine whether states can count mail-in ballots received after Election Day
-
Trump tariffs face stiff scrutiny at Supreme CourtSpeed Read Even some of the Court’s conservative justices appeared skeptical
-
Voting Rights Act: SCOTUS’s pivotal decisionFeature A Supreme Court ruling against the Voting Rights Act could allow Republicans to redraw districts and solidify control of the House
-
Supreme Court points to gutting Voting Rights Actspeed read States would no longer be required to consider race when drawing congressional maps
-
‘An exercise of the Republicans justifying their racist positions’instant opinion Opinion, comment and editorials of the day
-
Supreme Court: Judging 20 years of RobertsFeature Two decades after promising to “call balls and strikes,” Chief Justice John Roberts faces scrutiny for reshaping American democracy
-
Supreme Court rules for Fed’s Cook in Trump feudSpeed Read Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook can remain in her role following Trump’s attempts to oust her
