Tyler takings

Subscribe to Tyler takings via RSS

Sometimes when you read a court opinion you imagine there’s a big gap between the objective, sterile words on the page and the reality of the situation.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit’s opinion in O’Donnell v. City of Chicago, No. 24-2946 (Dec. 22, 2025) is one of those.

The words on the page reveal the court held that a Chicago ordinance which authorizes the city to seize vehicles for traffic violations — even other cars the violator owns — is not a taking because its “an exercise of the City’s police power to enforce its traffic code, and thus isn’t a taking.” Slip op. at 5. (We have problems with that conclusion, but more on that below.)

But reading the opinion gives a hint of the off-page reality on the ground.

Dig this. Get a traffic ticket in Chicago, and you can either challenge it…

Continue Reading CA7: No Taking When City Forfeited Cars For Traffic Violations – Even Cars Not Involved In The Violation

Here’s one you don’t want to miss. Lawprof Shelley Ross Saxer has published “Forfeiture Takings, Police Power, and Necessity Destruction,” 80 U. Miami L. Rev. 147 (2025).

Here’s the Abstract:

Civil forfeiture laws allow law enforcement to seize property when there is probable cause it has been used or possessed in violation of legal rules, often before an owner has a chance to contest the government’s seizure in court. In the criminal context, forfeiture is typically an in personam action that requires a criminal conviction and is part of a defendant’s sentence. In the civil context, however, forfeiture is an in rem proceeding brought against the property derived from or used to commit an offense––not against the person who committed the offense. As such, a civil forfeiture may not require a criminal conviction or predeprivation hearing, and, under the “guilty property” theory, developed in England before eventually being…

Continue Reading New Article: Shelley Ross Saxer, “Forfeiture Takings, Police Power, and Necessity Destruction,” 80 U. Miami L. Rev. 147 (2025)

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…

Continue Reading SCOTUS Merits Brief (Ours) In Just Comp/Excessive Fines Case

A short one from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, which asks: when the government is holding your abandoned property for you, do you have to ask for it to return it to you before you can bring a takings claim?

In Dillow v. Treasurer of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, No. 24-2004 (Oct. 3, 2025), the court held yes: the owner’s takings claim was not ripe because he had not asked the Treasurer to give the property back.

This is a non-precedential opinion so it is short. But there are two interesting parts that you should focus on.

First, the description of Pennsylvania’s system of unclaimed property. Pennsylvania deemed Dillow’s property — an uncashed claims payment check and a bank draft — to be “unclaimed,” and the Treasurer took custody and converted them to cash. Dillow did not file a claim for the cash. He acknowledged…

Continue Reading CA3: No Taking Until You Ask For Your Property Back