We will hear argument this morning in case 2595, Hung v. Isabella County.

Mr. Ellison.

Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court, the Fifth Amendment requires just compensation be measured by the value of what's taken.

The Sixth Circuit's categorical rule, reducing just compensation to surplus

auction proceeds in all instances was wrong. This Court has repeatedly confirmed that when the

government takes property, the constitutional calculus begins with its fair market value. That is

measured from the time of the take. The error here is clear.

The Pung home was worth $194,400. The tax debt was roughly $2,200. Just compensation meant

returning remaining equity. The lower courts erred when holding that the later auction price

of just $76,000 less the debt

was categorically the only just compensation owed.

But this court said it directly in Jacobs, an owner is owed just compensation, not inadequate

compensation.

Following Tyler, there are no windfalls to the government. This case now asked the

court to confirm the other half, that the Constitution likewise forbids confiscatory losses

when being imposed upon a former owner. Federal courts should consider all relevant

evidence of market value and determine whether just compensation has in fact been paid.

In addition to the Fifth Amendment, the Eighth Amendment's excessive fines clause provides a backstop as well.

Taking a six-figure home to punish over a small, four-figured tax constitutes a fine

and was sufficiently alleged to be grossly disproportionate to get past the initial pleading stage.

The judgment below should be reversed, and I welcome the Court's questions.

What do you do with the fact that the English and American legal traditions seem to permit these sorts of foreclosures.

...