My New Brennan Center Article on Tyler v. Hennepin County and the Cross-Ideological Case for Stronger Judicial Protection for Constitutional Property Rights

Final week, the Supreme Courtroom issued its determination in an essential Takings Clause case that elevated protections for property rights. Tyler v. Hennepin County addressed “dwelling fairness theft,” a authorized regime beneath which native governments can seize your complete worth of a property with the intention to repay a smaller delinquent property tax debt. The ruling has substantial implications for the connection between state legislation and constitutional property rights. Whereas states are free to guard property rights — and different rights — greater than the federal Structure requires, the latter units a significant flooring beneath which states should not fall.

Geraldine Tyler, the plaintiff within the case, is a 94-year-old African American widow whose dwelling was seized by Hennepin County, Minnesota, in 2015 after she could not repay $15,000 in taxes, penalties, curiosity, and costs. After promoting the house for $40,000, the county then stored your complete $40,000 for itself, as Minnesota legislation permits. Geraldine Tyler sued the county, arguing that the seizure of the excess funds is a taking of personal property requiring the fee of “simply compensation” beneath the Takings Clause of the Fifth Modification. Whereas takings circumstances typically break up the Courtroom alongside ideological traces, Tyler was unanimous….

Tyler… decisively repudiated the concept states can keep away from takings legal responsibility just by redefining property rights by way of laws. Chief Justice John Roberts’s opinion for the Courtroom holds that “state legislation is one essential supply [of property rights]. However state legislation can’t be the one supply….”

The idea of state supremacy over the definition of property rights is one longstanding argument for judicial deference to states in takings circumstances. The Courtroom was proper to reject it…

One other commonplace rationale for deference to states on takings points is the declare that state and native governments are finest capable of think about numerous native circumstances affecting land-use points. However this “variety” rationale would justify gutting federal judicial safety for a variety of constitutional rights….

Judicial safety for property rights really promotes variety and decentralization, relatively than undermining it. By giving particular person property homeowners higher management over their very own land, judicial overview permits a broader vary of land makes use of and extra native variety than if states and localities retain unconstrained energy to impose one-size-fits-all restrictions over massive areas….

Whereas the cross-ideological coalition in Tyler was uncommon, dwelling fairness theft is simply the tip of a a lot bigger iceberg of conditions the place stronger judicial enforcement of property rights may assist defend the poor, the politically weak, and minorities. The perfect instance is exclusionary zoning, as regulatory restrictions on housing development worth hundreds of thousands of lower-income folks out of areas the place they may in any other case discover higher alternative….

The identical applies to the circumstances like Berman v. Parker (1954), and Kelo v. Metropolis of New London (2005), which dominated that just about something — together with privately owned “financial improvement” — can qualify as a “public use” beneath the Fifth Modification, permitting the federal government to grab property by way of the usage of eminent area. This ultra-broad definition of “public use” is at odds with the unique which means of the Fifth Modification, and has enabled state and native governments to forcibly displace many 1000’s of primarily poor and minority residents….

Zoning and public use are removed from the one points the place there’s a compelling cross-ideological case for strengthening federal judicial safety for property rights. Others embody asset forfeitures, insufficient compensation for homeowners of condemned property, and extra…..

As with different constitutional rights, states stay free to offer higher safety for property rights than the federal Structure requires…..

However states’ capacity to rise above the federal flooring shouldn’t be a justification for letting them fall beneath it. A wide range of political pathologies typically incentivize states and localities to under-protect constitutional rights — together with property rights — particularly these of the poor, minorities, and the politically weak. In such conditions, federal judicial safety is important. That is very true the place sturdy judicial overview really enhances the federalist virtues of decentralization and variety.