Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/22-166_8n59.pdf
Page Number: 8.0

Cite as:  598 U. S. ____ (2023) 

5 

Opinion of the Court 

(1998).  For that, the Court draws on “existing rules or un-
derstandings” about property rights.  Ibid. (internal quota-
tion  marks  omitted).    State  law  is  one  important  source. 
Ibid.; see also Stop the Beach Renourishment, Inc. v. Flor-
ida Dept. of Environmental Protection, 560 U. S. 702, 707 
(2010).  But state law cannot be the only source.  Otherwise, 
a State could “sidestep the Takings Clause by disavowing 
traditional property interests” in assets it wishes to appro-
priate.  Phillips, 524 U. S., at 167; see also Webb’s Fabulous 
Pharmacies,  Inc.  v.  Beckwith,  449  U. S.  155,  164  (1980); 
Hall v. Meisner, 51 F. 4th 185, 190 (CA6 2022) (Kethledge,
J., for the Court) (“[T]he Takings Clause would be a dead 
letter if a state could simply exclude from its definition of
property any interest that the state wished to take.”).  So 
we  also  look  to  “traditional  property  law  principles,”  plus 
historical  practice  and  this  Court’s  precedents.    Phillips, 
524 U. S., at 165–168; see, e.g., United States v. Causby, 328 
U. S.  256,  260–267  (1946);  Ruckelshaus  v.  Monsanto  Co., 
467 U. S. 986, 1001–1004 (1984). 

Minnesota recognizes a homeowner’s right to real prop-
erty, like a  house, and to financial interests in that  prop-
erty, like home equity.  Cf. Armstrong v. United States, 364 
U. S.  40,  44  (1960)  (lien  on  boats);  Louisville  Joint  Stock 
Land Bank v. Radford, 295 U. S. 555, 590 (1935) (mortgage 
on  farm).  Historically,  Minnesota  also  recognized  that  a
homeowner whose property has been sold to satisfy delin-
quent property taxes had an interest in the excess value of 
her home above the debt owed.  See Farnham v. Jones, 32 
Minn. 7, 11, 19 N. W. 83, 85 (1884).  But in 1935, the State 
purported to extinguish that property interest by enacting
a law providing that an owner forfeits her interest in her 
home when she falls behind on her property taxes.  See 1935 
Minn. Laws pp. 713–714, §8.  This means, the County rea-
sons, that Tyler has no property interest protected by the 
Takings Clause.

History  and  precedent  say  otherwise.    The  County  had