This just in: the Supreme Court has decided Pung v. Isabella County, No. 25-95 (June 23, 2026). And the result — that “just compensation” for Tyler takings is usually measured by the surplus after a tax sale and not fair market value of the property, unless the tax sale process is unfair or skewed — isn’t the hoped-for outcome.
Disclosure: we have an interest in this one, because we are co-counsel for the Pung family.
We’re still digesting the unanimous opinion and multiple concurrences:
But in the meantime, here’s the money quote as we see it, where the Court limits the holding to “tax-sale cases,” and leaves the usual rules in place for how to measure just compensation in “eminent-domain cases.” At heart, this decision is a good reminder that the measure of what is “just” compensation for a taking is not a mechanical invocation of “fair market value” but can vary with the situation (eminent domain mavens know that departing from the FMV standard can be justified such as when the property is unique, or when determining FMV is difficult, for example):
But what is “just” in one context may not be “just” in another. Even in eminent-domain cases, the Court has “refused to designate market value as the sole measure of just compensation,” recognizing that “there are situations where this standard is inappropriate.” United States v. 564.54 Acres of Monroe and Pike County Land, 441 U.S. 506, 512 (1979) (“‘[W]hen market value has been too difficult to find, or when its application would result in manifest injustice to owner or public, courts have fashioned and applied other standards’ ”).
Tax sales constitute such a situation.
Slip op. at 7-8.
More to come after digesting the opinions.
Pung v. Isabella County, No. 25-95 (U.S. June 23, 2026)