In Pung v. Isabella County (No. 25-95), the Supreme Court is considering whether the Takings Clause requires governments to compensate property owners based on the fair market value of their property following a tax foreclosure, rather than limiting compensation to the proceeds generated by the foreclosure sale. The case also asks whether the government’s retention of the difference between the property’s alleged fair market value and the amount realized at auction may implicate the Excessive Fines Clause of the Eighth Amendment. The dispute arises from a foreclosure in which the property was sold for less than its asserted market value, raising questions about whether constitutionally “just compensation” turns on market value or the results of the auction-priced foreclosure process itself.
Continue Reading Supreme Court to Determine the Limits of State Powers in Tax Foreclosures
Supreme Court Considers Whether Due Process Clause Requires Post-Seizure Probable Cause Hearings for Innocent Vehicle Owners
In Culley v. Marshall, the Supreme Court is asked to determine whether the Due Process Clause requires a state or local government to provide a post-seizure probable cause hearing before a statutorily-required civil forfeiture proceeding. In determining whether a hearing is required, the Court must decide which rule applies: the “speedy trial” test employed in United States v. $8,850, 461 U.S. 555 (1983), and Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (1972), as held by the Eleventh Circuit, or the three-part due process analysis set forth in Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976), as held by at least the Second, Fifth, Seventh, and Ninth Circuits.
Supreme Court’s First Code Of Ethics
Historically, the Supreme Court has never published a code of conduct for the Justices. That changed this past month when the Supreme Court published the first Code Of Conduct For Justices Of The Supreme Court Of The United States.
Supreme Court to Decide Whether Refusal to Recognize Trademark Criticizing a Public Figure Violates the Free Speech Clause
Vidal v. Elster addresses the complex intersection between trademark registration and freedom of speech under the First Amendment.
Supreme Court Examines Whether Public Officials’ Social Media Activity Constitutes State Action in O’Connor-Ratcliff and Lindke
In O’Connor-Ratcliff v. Garnier and Lindke v. Freed, the Court is considering whether a public official engages in state action subject to the First Amendment by blocking an individual or deleting comments from the official’s personal social-media account.
Supreme Court Weighs Gun Rights For Domestic Violence Offenders
In United States v. Rahimi, the central question before the Court is whether the government may restrict gun ownership for individuals subject to domestic violence protective orders under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8). This is a critical Second Amendment challenge, marking the first significant test of the Second Amendment’s individual right to bear arms since the Court’s 2022 Bruen decision.
Continue Reading Supreme Court Weighs Gun Rights For Domestic Violence Offenders
Supreme Court Contemplates Whether Sovereign Immunity Is Waived Under The Fair Credit Reporting Act
In Department of Agriculture, Rural Development Rural Housing Service v. Kirtz, the Court is considering whether civil liability provisions of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) unequivocally and unambiguously waive the sovereign immunity of the United States.
Last Month at the Supreme Court | December 2023
Dykema’s appellate group is delighted to present the December edition of its monthly publication, “Last Month at the Supreme Court.” Each publication will feature synopses of the Court’s high-profile and client-oriented cases, including highlights from oral argument and opinion analysis as the Court issues key decisions.
Continue Reading Last Month at the Supreme Court | December 2023