Court united on condo seizure

County kept all money from sale

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court seemed united Wednesday, in the last scheduled argument of its current term, in its distaste for how county officials in Minnesota had treated a 94-year-old woman who had stopped paying property taxes on her condominium after moving into an assisted living center.

By the time the county seized the property, the woman, Geraldine Tyler, owed about $2,000 in taxes and an additional $13,000 in penalties and interest. The county sold the condo at auction for $40,000, and it kept not only the $15,000 that all agree it was due but also the remaining $25,000.

Retaining the entire value of a confiscated property, even when the debts owed amounted to a small portion of it, is authorized by Minnesota law. According to the county’s brief, about 20 other states, including Massachusetts, have similar procedures.

Christina M. Martin, a lawyer for Tyler, said the county had an obligation to repay the balance under the Constitution’s takings clause, which says that property cannot “be taken for public use, without just compensation.”

“A debt collector may not take more than what’s owed,” she said.

Martin faced questions, with the justices examining issues like when the taking happened, how to assess the relevant amounts, and the role that state law should play in the analysis.

Erica L. Ross, a lawyer for the federal government who argued that the county’s action amounted to a taking as soon as it took title to the property, was met with a skeptical response from Justice Sonia Sotomayor.

“You’re throwing a bomb” into more than two centuries of history, the justice said, adding: “The state’s being forced into being the agent for the seller, and it’s going to have to take all the risk and all of the responsibility for whatever happens to that property until it’s sold. Why would any state want to do that, and why are you forcing states into that?”

Sotomayor said the court should answer only the narrower question of whether Tyler is entitled to the surplus from an eventual sale.

The justices were more animated in the second half of the argument, in which Neal K. Katyal defended the county’s actions, saying they were rooted in historical practice and encouraged homeowners to take steps to protect their property.

Justice Neil Gorsuch, ordinarily open to historical evidence, said that it was not instructive in the case before the court, Tyler v. Hennepin County. He discussed the county’s reliance on the Statute of Gloucester, enacted in 1278 in medieval England.

“The Statute of Gloucester was about lands owned by the feudal lord and what happens when a vassal fails to provide enough wheat to his lord,” Gorsuch said, adding, “I just don’t understand what on earth any of that history has to do with this case.”

Several justices tested Katyal’s argument with hypothetical questions.

“Are there any limits?” Justice Elena Kagan asked. “I mean, $5,000 tax debt, $5 million house, take the house, don’t give back the rest?”

After some prodding, Katyal said that would not run afoul of the takings clause.

Kagan pressed on, asking whether the government could confiscate $100,000 in a bank account to pay off a $10,000 debt.

Cash is different, Katyal said. Justice Amy Coney Barrett asked whether a car could be seized and sold to satisfy a $20 parking ticket.

Katyal said there was no old historical tradition supporting such actions.