Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/22-166_8n59.pdf
Page Number: 1.0

(Slip Opinion) 

OCTOBER  TERM,  2022 

1 

Syllabus 

NOTE:  Where  it  is  feasible,  a  syllabus  (headnote)  will  be  released,  as  is 
being  done  in  connection  with  this  case,  at  the  time  the  opinion  is  issued. 
The  syllabus  constitutes  no  part  of  the  opinion  of  the  Court  but  has  been 
prepared  by  the  Reporter  of  Decisions  for  the  convenience  of  the  reader. 
See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337. 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

Syllabus 

TYLER v. HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA, ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR 
THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT 

No. 22–166.  Argued April 26, 2023—Decided May 25, 2023 

Geraldine Tyler owned a condominium in Hennepin County, Minnesota,
that accumulated about $15,000 in unpaid real estate taxes along with
interest  and  penalties.    The  County  seized  the  condo  and  sold  it  for 
$40,000,  keeping  the  $25,000  excess  over  Tyler’s  tax  debt  for  itself. 
Minn. Stat. §§281.18, 282.07, 282.08.  Tyler filed suit, alleging that the 
County had unconstitutionally retained the excess value of her home 
above  her  tax  debt  in  violation  of  the  Takings  Clause  of  the  Fifth 
Amendment  and  the  Excessive  Fines  Clause  of  the  Eighth  Amend-
ment.  The District Court dismissed the suit for failure to state a claim, 
and the Eighth Circuit affirmed.   

Held: Tyler plausibly alleges that Hennepin County’s retention of the ex-
cess value of her home above her tax debt violated the Takings Clause.
Pp. 3–14.

(a) Tyler’s claim that the County illegally appropriated the $25,000
surplus  constitutes  a  classic  pocketbook  injury  sufficient  to  give  her 
standing.  TransUnion  LLC  v.  Ramirez,  594  U. S.  ___,  ___.    Even  if 
there are debts on her home, as the County claims, Tyler still plausibly
alleges  a  financial  harm,  for  the  County  has  kept  $25,000  that  she 
could have used to reduce her personal liability for those debts.  Pp. 3– 
4. 

(b) Tyler has stated a claim under the Takings Clause, which pro-
vides that “private property [shall not] be taken for public use, without
just compensation.”  Whether remaining value from a tax sale is prop-
erty protected under the Takings Clause depends on state law, “tradi-
tional  property  law  principles,”  historical  practice,  and  the  Court’s 
precedents.  Phillips v. Washington Legal Foundation, 524 U. S. 156, 
165–168.  Though state law is an important source of property rights, 
it cannot be the only one because otherwise a State could “sidestep the