Tyler v. Hennepin County
Tyler v. Hennepin County
22-166
March 2, 2023
i
QUESTION PRESENTED
Whether taking and selling a home to satisfy a
debt to the government, and keeping the surplus
value as a windfall, violates the Takings Clause?
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUESTION PRESENTED ........................................... i
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ....................................... iii
INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE................................. 1
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ..................................... 3
ARGUMENT ................................................................ 7
I. THIS COURT’S PRECEDENTS SHOW
THAT STATE REDEFINITIONS OF
PROPERTY CAN CONSTITUTE
TAKINGS .......................................................... 7
II. ENGLISH COMMON LAW
SCHOLARS AND EARLY AMERICAN
FOUNDERS BELIEVED THAT
LEGISLATIVE TAKINGS VIOLATED
PROPERTY RIGHTS ...................................... 13
III.MINNESOTA’S TAX LIEN STATUTE
IS A LEGISLATIVE TAKING ........................ 17
CONCLUSION .......................................................... 21
iii
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Page(s)
Cases
Ayer v. Stewart, 14 Minn. 97 (1869) ............................ 4
Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564 (1972)
.................................................................................. 5
Cedar Point v. Hassid, 141 S. Ct. 2063 (2021)
........................................................................ 6, 8, 18
District of Columbia v. R. P. Andrews Paper
Co., 256 U.S. 582 (1921) ......................................... 20
Eastern Enters. v. Apfel, 524 U.S. 498 (1998) ........... 19
Farnham v. Jones, 19 N.W. 83 (Minn. 1884) ................
4, 11, 12, 18
Hall v. Meisner, 51 F.4th 185 (6th Cir. 2022) ..... 4, 6, 7
Hughes v. Washington, 389 U.S. 290 (1967) ..... 8, 9, 12
Inhabitants of Medford v. Learned, 16 Mass.
(15 Tyng) 215 (1819) .............................................. 15
Kaiser Aetna v. United States, 444 U.S. 164
(1979) ...................................................................... 18
Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Mgmt. Dist.,
570 U.S. 595 (2013) .................................... 12, 19, 20
Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, 505
U.S. 1003 (1992) ..................................... 9, 10, 11, 19
Minn. Debenture Co. v. Scott, 106 Minn. 32
(1908) ...................................................................... 12
Mugler v. Kansas, 123 U.S. 623 (1887) ....................... 7
Munn v. Illinois, 94 U.S. 113 (1876) ..................... 9, 10
Newland v. Marsh, 19 Ill. 376 (1857)........................ 15
iv
Other Authorities
1 William Blackstone, Commentaries (1765) ..... 13, 14
Bernard H. Siegan, Property Rights: From
Magna Carta to the Fourteenth
Amendment (2001) ................................................. 13
Caleb Nelson, Adjudication in the Political
Branches, 107 Colum. L. Rev. 559 (2007). ............ 14
Federalist No. 10 (James Madison) (Clint
Rossiter ed., 1961) .................................................. 14
Federalist No. 80 (James Madison) .......................... 16
Felix S. Cohen, Dialogue on Private Property,
9 Rutgers L. Rev. 357 (1954) ................................. 18
George Van Cleve, The Antifederalist’s
Toughest Challenge: Paper Money, Debt,
Relief, and the Ratification of the
Constitution, 34 J. Early Republic 529
(2014) ............................................................ 5, 15, 16
James Madison, Property, in 14 Papers of
James Madison (William T. Hutchinson et.
al., eds. 1973) (Mar. 29, 1792) ................................. 6
Jennifer Nedelsky, Reconceiving Autonomy:
Sources, Thoughts and Possibilities, 1 Yale
J.L. & Feminism 7 (1989) ...................................... 15
John Locke, 2 Treatise of Civil Government ............ 13
Lee Nelson, What Is a Pre-Foreclosed
Property, and How Do You Buy One?,
MyMortgageInsider (April 29, 2022) ..................... 20
vi
at 5. When she did not pay her property taxes, she ac-
cumulated almost $12,700 in fees and interest. Id.
Hennepin County, Minnesota, seized her home, sold it
for $40,000, paid off her tax debt, and then kept the
$25,000 in remaining equity. Id. Tyler was left with
nothing.
Allowing the government to profit from the sei-
zure of private property is not only unjust—it is uncon-
stitutional. The Fifth Amendment’s protections apply
not only to real property but also to intangible property
interests, such as an owner’s equity in her home. Since
Magna Carta, English and American common law has
required governments to return any surplus from
property taken to pay tax debts. See Magna Carta
Clause 26; Hall v. Meisner, 51 F.4th 185, 190–94 (6th
Cir. 2022) (discussing the history of treating surplus
home equity as the homeowner’s property after a tax
foreclosure). Nevertheless, today 14 states have ab-
jured English and American common law, allowing lo-
cal authorities to seize surplus equity and deposit it in
government treasuries. Minnesota, at issue in this
case, took legislative action to change the state’s law
and create a tax-debt recovery scheme that allows the
government to keep any surplus from the property
taken to pay off the debt. Compare 1881 Minn. Laws
176–77, with Minn. Stat. § 939 (1905).
Before this legislative change, the Minnesota Su-
preme Court had held that homeowners possess a
right to the surplus equity of their homes, in the con-
texts of satisfying both unpaid tax debt and mortgage
payments. Farnham v. Jones, 19 N.W. 83, 85 (Minn.
1884) (taxes); Ayer v. Stewart, 14 Minn. 97, 98 (1869)
(mortgages); Stromberg v. Lindberg, 25 Minn. 513,
514–16 (1879) (same). But the Minnesota legislature
then changed the rules, codifying a predatory tax
5
ARGUMENT
I. This Court’s Precedents Show that State
Redefinitions of Property Can Constitute
Takings
This Court has held that it is the role of courts to
constrain legislatures when they commit Fifth Amend-
ment takings: “If, therefore, a statute . . . is a palpable
invasion of rights secured by the fundamental law, it
is the duty of the courts to so adjudge, and thereby give
effect to the Constitution.” Mugler v. Kansas, 123 U.S.
623, 661 (1887). And when a legislature changes a
property interest from private to public, it can commit
a compensable taking. See, e.g., Stop the Beach Re-
nourishment, Inc. v. Fla. Dep’t of Env’t Prot., 560 U.S.
702, 715 (2010) (plurality op.) (“If a legislature . . . de-
clares that what was once an established right of pri-
vate property no longer exists, it has taken that prop-
erty, no less than if the State had physically appropri-
ated it or destroyed its value by regulation.”); Phillips
v. Wash. Legal Found., 524 U.S. 156, 167 (1998) (“‘[A]
State, by ipse dixit, may not transform private prop-
erty into public property without compensation’ simply
by legislatively abrogating the traditional rule . . . .”)
(quoting Webb’s Fabulous Pharms., Inc., v. Beckwith,
449 U.S. 155, 164 (1980)); see also Hall, 51 F.4th at 190
(“But the Takings Clause would be a dead letter if a
state could simply exclude from its definition of prop-
erty any interest that the state wished to take.”) (hold-
ing unconstitutional a state statute allowing the gov-
ernment to take surplus equity after a tax lien sale).
This Court recently affirmed that courts must
protect property against not only executive but also
legislative action. In Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid,
the Court explained that it does not matter which
8
4
U.S. Const. art. I, § 10, cl. 1 “No state shall . . . emit Bills of Credit; make
any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts . . . .”
17
To the world:
6 https://tinyurl.com/sdfn6tke.
21
Respectfully submitted,
March 2, 2023