Pung v. Isabella County, Michigan

Questions presented

SCOTUS records, cert granted 3 Oct 2025

1. Isabella County confiscated the Pung Estate's private home for approximately $2,200 in taxes and fees (that were never actually owed). The lower courts used the artificially depressed auction sale price rather than the property's fair market value as the starting point for its damages calculation. The Sixth Circuit and others have held that the "fair market value" taken is not what is owed to begin to fulfill the constitutional compensatory obligation imposed by the Fifth Amendment. That defies this Court's precedents. And if it is not taken within the meaning of the Fifth Amendment, it is otherwise an excessive fine under the Eighth Amendment by imposing a punishment by pilfering far more than ever needed to satisfy a small debt. The questions presented are:
2. 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?
3. 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?

Opinion summary

Etalia.ai summary of the majority opinion

The dispute was over how much compensation is owed after a county forecloses on and sells property for unpaid taxes. The Pung family’s home was sold at a tax auction for less than its assessed value, and Pung argued that the Constitution required payment based on the home’s fair market value, not just the sale price and surplus proceeds. Justice Alito wrote that the Fifth Amendment Takings Clause uses the tax-sale price as the baseline, at least when the sale is fairly conducted in light of the Nation’s history of tax sales, and that precedent and history do not support using hypothetical fair market value. The Court also rejected the Eighth Amendment Excessive Fines Clause argument for the same reason, holding that it does not require more than the surplus proceeds after a fairly conducted tax sale. The judgment was vacated and the case remanded.