Here’s the latest in a case we’ve been following. [Disclosure: this is one of ours, so we won’t be commenting much at all.]

In Pung v. Isabella County, No. 25-95, the U.S. Supreme Court is considering these Questions Presented:

1. 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 of the Fifth Amendment when the compensation is based on the artificially depressed auction sale price rather than the property’s fair market value?

2. Whether the forfeiture of real property worth far more than needed to satisfy a tax debt but sold for fraction of its real value constitutes an excessive fine under the Eighth Amendment, particularly when the debt was never actually owed?

(Here’s the cert petition.)

Today, the petitioner filed the merits brief, arguing that yes, “[w]hen government takes more than it is owed, it crosses constitutional line. The Fifth Amendment mandates just compensation; the Eighth Amendment forbids excessive fines as punishment.” Br. at 2.

As the brief argues:

The heart of this case is not whether the government may ever seize and sell property for unpaid taxes. It has that option, among others. The question is how much the Constitution requires the government to pay for the taking, and whether the same conduct, when punitive in character and grossly disproportional to any debt, also violates the Excessive Fines Clause.

This case seeks to restore the constitutional equilibrium between the citizen and the state. Government may collect what it is owed but may not enrich itself at the citizen’s expense or sacrifice property in excess of what is due. A taxpayer must render unto Caesar only what is Caesar’s. And Caesar, in turn, must neither take nor destroy more than what is due without just compensation.

Br. at 3.

The brief focuses on the foreclosure auction process imposed by the County, which was both unnecessary (the County grabbed the entire title to the Pung property and not just a lien for the taxes supposedly owed), and rushed (such that the auction price is “severely depressed” –

Isabella County took title to the Pungs’ $194,400 home to collect a disputed $2,242 debt. Tyler instructs that they were entitled to a refund of their remaining equity, the part of the property that did not belong to the County. The County chose to sell the property at auction under conditions resulting in a severely depressed price. After years of litigation, the Pungs recovered not their equity, but only a fraction of that value represented by the surplus proceeds of the auction. The Takings Clause does not permit that. It requires compensation measured by the owner’s loss—what this Court has long called “fair market value”—not the depressed proceeds of an inadequate auction conducted by the taker.

Br. at 10.

The Pung property.

Stay tuned. Follow along on the Court’s docket here.

Brief for the Petitioner, Pung v. Isabella County, No. 25-95 (U.S. Dec. 1, 2025)