Court Opinion

ID: 9398849
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-01 15:02:21.092119+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:37.020694
License: Public Domain

(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
2                     TYLER v. HENNEPIN COUNTY

                                   Syllabus

    Takings Clause by disavowing traditional property interests” in assets
    it wishes to appropriate. Id., at 167. History and precedent dictate
    that, while the County had the power to sell Tyler’s home to recover
    the unpaid property taxes, it could not use the tax debt to confiscate
    more property than was due. Doing so effected a “classic taking in
    which the government directly appropriates private property for its
    own use.” Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council, Inc. v. Tahoe Regional
    Planning Agency, 535 U. S. 302, 324 (internal quotation marks omit-
    ted).
       The principle that a government may not take from a taxpayer more
    than she owes is rooted in English law and can trace its origins at least
    as far back as Magna Carta. From the founding, the new Government
    of the United States could seize and sell only “so much of [a] tract of
    land . . . as may be necessary to satisfy the taxes due thereon.” Act of
    July 14, 1798, §13, 1 Stat. 601. Ten States adopted similar statutes
    around the same time, and the consensus that a government could not
    take more property than it was owed held true through the ratification
    of the Fourteenth Amendment. Today, most States and the Federal
    Government require excess value to be returned to the taxpayer whose
    property is sold to satisfy outstanding tax debt.
       The Court’s precedents have long recognized the principle that a tax-
    payer is entitled to the surplus in excess of the debt owed. See United
    States v. Taylor, 104 U. S. 216; United States v. Lawton, 110 U. S. 146.
    Nelson v. City of New York, 352 U. S. 103, did not change that. The
    ordinance challenged there did not “absolutely preclud[e] an owner
    from obtaining the surplus proceeds of a judicial sale,” but instead
    simply defined the process through which the owner could claim the
    surplus. Id., at 110. Minnesota’s scheme, in comparison, provides no
    opportunity for the taxpayer to recover the excess value from the State.
       Significantly, Minnesota law itself recognizes in many other con-
    texts that a property owner is entitled to the surplus in excess of her
    debt. If a bank forecloses on a mortgaged property, state law entitles
    the homeowner to the surplus from the sale. And in collecting past due
    taxes on income or personal property, Minnesota protects the tax-
    payer’s right to surplus. Minnesota may not extinguish a property in-
    terest that it recognizes everywhere else to avoid paying just compensa-
    tion when the State does the taking. Phillips, 524 U. S., at 167. Pp. 4–12.
       (c) The Court rejects the County’s argument that Tyler has no prop-
    erty interest in the surplus because she constructively abandoned her
    home by failing to pay her taxes. Abandonment requires the “surren-
    der or relinquishment or disclaimer of” all rights in the property, Rowe
    v. Minneapolis, 51 N. W. 907, 908. Minnesota’s forfeiture law is not
    concerned about the taxpayer’s use or abandonment of the property,
    only her failure to pay taxes. The County cannot frame that failure as
                     Cite as: 598 U. S. ____ (2023)               3

                               Syllabus

  abandonment to avoid the demands of the Takings Clause. Pp. 12–14.
26 F. 4th 789, reversed.

  ROBERTS, C. J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court. GOR-
SUCH,J., filed a concurring opinion, in which JACKSON, J., joined.
                        Cite as: 598 U. S. ____ (2023)                              1

                             Opinion of the Court

     NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the
     United States Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of
     Decisions, Supreme Court of the United States, Washington, D. C. 20543,
     pio@supremecourt.gov, of any typographical or other formal errors.

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
                                   _________________

                                   No. 22–166
                                   _________________

   GERALDINE TYLER, PETITIONER v. HENNEPIN
          COUNTY, MINNESOTA, ET AL.
 ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF
           APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
                                 [May 25, 2023]

   CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS delivered the opinion of the
Court.
   Hennepin County, Minnesota, sold Geraldine Tyler’s
home for $40,000 to satisfy a $15,000 tax bill. Instead of
returning the remaining $25,000, the County kept it for it-
self. The question presented is whether this constituted a
taking of property without just compensation, in violation
of the Fifth Amendment.
                               I
   Hennepin County imposes an annual tax on real prop-
erty. Minn. Stat. §273.01 (2022). The taxpayer has one
year to pay before the taxes become delinquent. §279.02. If
she does not timely pay, the tax accrues interest and penal-
ties, and the County obtains a judgment against the prop-
erty, transferring limited title to the State. See §§279.03,
279.18, 280.01. The delinquent taxpayer then has three
years to redeem the property and regain title by paying all
the taxes and late fees. §§281.17(a), 281.18. During this
time, the taxpayer remains the beneficial owner of the prop-
erty and can continue to live in her home. See §281.70. But
2               TYLER v. HENNEPIN COUNTY

                      Opinion of the Court

if at the end of three years the bill has not been paid, abso-
lute title vests in the State, and the tax debt is extin-
guished. §§281.18, 282.07. The State may keep the prop-
erty for public use or sell it to a private party. §282.01
subds. 1a, 3. If the property is sold, any proceeds in excess
of the tax debt and the costs of the sale remain with the
County, to be split between it, the town, and the school dis-
trict. §282.08. The former owner has no opportunity to re-
cover this surplus.
   Geraldine Tyler is 94 years old. In 1999, she bought a
one-bedroom condominium in Minneapolis and lived alone
there for more than a decade. But as Tyler aged, she and
her family decided that she would be safer in a senior com-
munity, so they moved her to one in 2010. Nobody paid the
property taxes on the condo in Tyler’s absence and, by 2015,
it had accumulated about $2300 in unpaid taxes and
$13,000 in interest and penalties. Acting under Minne-
sota’s forfeiture procedures, Hennepin County seized the
condo and sold it for $40,000, extinguishing the $15,000
debt. App. 5. The County kept the remaining $25,000 for
its own use.
   Tyler filed a putative class action against Hennepin
County and its officials, asserting that the County had un-
constitutionally retained the excess value of her home
above her tax debt. As relevant, she brought claims under
the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment and the Exces-
sive Fines Clause of the Eighth Amendment.
   The District Court dismissed the suit for failure to state
a claim. 505 F. Supp. 3d 879, 883 (Minn. 2020). The Eighth
Circuit affirmed. 26 F. 4th 789, 790 (2022). It held that
“[w]here state law recognizes no property interest in sur-
plus proceeds from a tax-foreclosure sale conducted after
adequate notice to the owner, there is no unconstitutional
taking.” Id., at 793. The court also rejected Tyler’s claim
under the Excessive Fines Clause, adopting the District
Court’s reasoning that the forfeiture was not a fine because
                  Cite as: 598 U. S. ____ (2023)             3

                      Opinion of the Court

it was intended to remedy the State’s tax losses, not to pun-
ish delinquent property owners. Id., at 794 (citing 505
F. Supp. 3d, at 895–899).
   We granted certiorari. 598 U. S. ___ (2023).
                               II
   The County asserts that Tyler does not have standing to
bring her takings claim. To bring suit, a plaintiff must
plead an injury in fact attributable to the defendant’s con-
duct and redressable by the court. Lujan v. Defenders of
Wildlife, 504 U. S. 555, 560–561 (1992). This case comes to
us on a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. At
this initial stage, we take the facts in the complaint as true.
Warth v. Seldin, 422 U. S. 490, 501 (1975). Tyler claims
that the County has illegally appropriated the $25,000 sur-
plus beyond her $15,000 tax debt. App. 5. This is a classic
pocketbook injury sufficient to give her standing. TransUn-
ion LLC v. Ramirez, 594 U. S. ___, ___ (2021) (slip op., at 9).
   The County objects that Tyler does not have standing be-
cause she did not affirmatively “disclaim the existence of
other debts or encumbrances” on her home worth more than
the $25,000 surplus. Brief for Respondents 12–13, and n.
5. According to the County, public records suggest that the
condo may be subject to a $49,000 mortgage and a $12,000
lien for unpaid homeowners’ association fees. See ibid.
The County argues that these potential encumbrances ex-
ceed the value of any interest Tyler has in the home above
her $15,000 tax debt, and that she therefore ultimately suf-
fered no financial harm from the sale of her home. Without
such harm she would have no standing.
   But the County never entered these records below, nor
has it submitted them to this Court. Even if there were
encumbrances on the home worth more than the surplus,
Tyler still plausibly alleges a financial harm: The County
has kept $25,000 that belongs to her. In Minnesota, a tax
sale extinguishes all other liens on a property. See Minn.
4                TYLER v. HENNEPIN COUNTY

                      Opinion of the Court

Stat. §281.18; County of Blue Earth v. Turtle, 593 N. W. 2d
258, 261 (Minn. App. 1999). That sale does not extinguish
the taxpayer’s debts. Instead, the borrower remains per-
sonally liable. See St. Paul v. St. Anthony Flats Ltd. Part-
nership, 517 N. W. 2d 58, 62 (Minn. App. 1994). Had Tyler
received the surplus from the tax sale, she could have at the
very least used it to reduce any such liability.
  At this initial stage of the case, Tyler need not definitively
prove her injury or disprove the County’s defenses. She has
plausibly pleaded on the face of her complaint that she suf-
fered financial harm from the County’s action, and that is
enough for now. See Lujan, 504 U. S., at 561.
                             III
                              A
   The Takings Clause, applicable to the States through the
Fourteenth Amendment, provides that “private property
[shall not] be taken for public use, without just compensa-
tion.” U. S. Const., Amdt. 5. States have long imposed
taxes on property. Such taxes are not themselves a taking,
but are a mandated “contribution from individuals . . . for
the support of the government . . . for which they receive
compensation in the protection which government affords.”
County of Mobile v. Kimball, 102 U. S. 691, 703 (1881). In
collecting these taxes, the State may impose interest and
late fees. It may also seize and sell property, including
land, to recover the amount owed. See Jones v. Flowers,
547 U. S. 220, 234 (2006). Here there was money remaining
after Tyler’s home was seized and sold by the County to sat-
isfy her past due taxes, along with the costs of collecting
them. The question is whether that remaining value is
property under the Takings Clause, protected from uncom-
pensated appropriation by the State.
   The Takings Clause does not itself define property. Phil-
lips v. Washington Legal Foundation, 524 U. S. 156, 164
                  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
6                TYLER v. HENNEPIN COUNTY

                      Opinion of the Court

the power to sell Tyler’s home to recover the unpaid prop-
erty taxes. But it could not use the toehold of the tax debt
to confiscate more property than was due. By doing so, it
effected a “classic taking in which the government directly
appropriates private property for its own use.” Tahoe-Si-
erra Preservation Council, Inc. v. Tahoe Regional Planning
Agency, 535 U. S. 302, 324 (2002) (internal quotation marks
and alteration omitted). Tyler has stated a claim under the
Takings Clause and is entitled to just compensation.
                              B
   The principle that a government may not take more from
a taxpayer than she owes can trace its origins at least as far
back as Runnymede in 1215, where King John swore in
Magna Carta that when his sheriff or bailiff came to collect
any debts owed him from a dead man, they could remove
property “until the debt which is evident shall be fully paid
to us; and the residue shall be left to the executors to fulfil
the will of the deceased.” W. McKechnie, Magna Carta, A
Commentary on the Great Charter of King John, ch. 26, p.
322 (rev. 2d ed. 1914) (footnote omitted).
   That doctrine became rooted in English law. Parliament
gave the Crown the power to seize and sell a taxpayer’s
property to recover a tax debt, but dictated that any “Over-
plus” from the sale “be immediately restored to the Owner.”
4 W. & M., ch. 1, §12, in 3 Eng. Stat. at Large 488–489
(1692). As Blackstone explained, the common law de-
manded the same: If a tax collector seized a taxpayer’s prop-
erty, he was “bound by an implied contract in law to restore
[the property] on payment of the debt, duty, and expenses,
before the time of sale; or, when sold, to render back the
overplus.” 2 Commentaries on the Laws of England 453
(1771).
   This principle made its way across the Atlantic. In col-
lecting taxes, the new Government of the United States
could seize and sell only “so much of [a] tract of land . . . as
                      Cite as: 598 U. S. ____ (2023)                       7

                           Opinion of the Court

may be necessary to satisfy the taxes due thereon.” Act of
July 14, 1798, §13, 1 Stat. 601. Ten States adopted similar
statutes shortly after the founding.1 For example, Mary-
land required that only so much land be sold “as may be
sufficient to discharge the taxes thereon due,” and provided
that if the sale produced more than needed for the taxes,
“such overplus of money” shall be paid to the owner. 1797
Md. Laws ch. 90, §§4–5. This Court enforced one such state
statute against a Georgia tax collector, reasoning that “if a
whole tract of land was sold when a small part of it would
have been sufficient for the taxes, which at present appears
to be the case, the collector unquestionably exceeded his au-
thority.” Stead’s Executors v. Course, 4 Cranch 403, 414
(1808) (Marshall, C. J., for the Court).
   Like its sister States, Virginia originally provided that
the Commonwealth could seize and sell “so much” of the de-
linquent tracts “as shall be sufficient to discharge the said
taxes.” 1781 Va. Acts p. 153, §4. But about a decade later,
Virginia enacted a new scheme, which provided for the for-
feiture of any delinquent land to the Commonwealth. Vir-
ginia passed this harsh forfeiture regime in response to the
“loose, cheap and unguarded system of disposing of her pub-
lic lands” that the Commonwealth had adopted immedi-
ately following statehood. McClure v. Maitland, 24 W. Va.
561, 564 (1884). To encourage settlement, Virginia permit-
ted “any person [to] acquire title to so much . . . unappropri-
ated lands as he or she shall desire to purchase” at the price
of 40 pounds per 100 acres. 1779 Va. Acts p. 95, §2. Within
two decades, nearly all of Virginia’s land had been claimed,
——————
  1 1796 Conn. Acts p. 356–357, §§32, 36; 1797 Del. Laws p. 1260, §26;

1791 Ga. Laws p. 14; 1801 Ky. Acts pp. 78–79, §4; 1797 Md. Laws ch. 90,
§§4–5; 1786 Mass. Acts pp. 360–361; 1792 N. H. Laws p. 194; 1792 N. C.
Sess. Laws p. 23, §5; 1801 N. Y. Laws pp. 498–499, §17; 1787 Vt. Acts &
Resolves p. 126. Kentucky made an exception for unregistered land, or
land that the owner had “fail[ed] to list . . . for taxation,” with such land
forfeiting to the State. 1801 Ky. Acts p. 80, §5.
8                   TYLER v. HENNEPIN COUNTY

                           Opinion of the Court

much of it by nonresidents who did not live on or farm the
land but instead hoped to sell it for a profit. McClure, 24
W. Va., at 564. Many of these nonresidents “wholly ne-
glected to pay the taxes” on the land, id., at 565, so Virginia
provided that title to any taxpayer’s land was completely
“lost, forfeited and vested in the Commonwealth” if the tax-
payer failed to pay taxes within a set period, 1790 Va. Acts
p. 5, §5. This solution was short lived, however; the Com-
monwealth repealed the forfeiture scheme in 1814 and once
again sold “so much only of each tract of land . . . as will be
sufficient to discharge the” debt. 1813 Va. Acts p. 21, §27.
Virginia’s “exceptional” and temporary forfeiture scheme
carries little weight against the overwhelming consensus of
its sister States. See Martin v. Snowden, 59 Va. 100, 138
(1868).
   The consensus that a government could not take more
property than it was owed held true through the passage of
the Fourteenth Amendment. States, including Minnesota,
continued to require that no more than the minimum
amount of land be sold to satisfy the outstanding tax debt.2
The County identifies just three States that deemed delin-
quent property entirely forfeited for failure to pay taxes.
See 1836 Me. Laws p. 325, §4; 1869 La. Acts p. 159, §63;
1850 Miss. Laws p. 52, §4.3 Two of these laws did not last.

——————
   2 Many of these new States required that the land be sold to whichever

buyer would “pay [the tax debt] for the least number of acres” and pro-
vided that the land forfeited to the State only if it failed to sell “for want
of bidders” because the land was worth less than the taxes owed. 1821
Ohio pp. 27–28, §§7, 10; see also 1837 Ark. Acts pp. 14–17, §§83, 100;
1844 Ill. Laws pp. 13, 18, §§51, 77; 1859 Minn. Laws pp. 58, 61, §§23, 38;
1859 Wis. Laws Ch. 22, pp. 22–23, §§7, 9; cf. Iowa Code pp. 120–121,
§§766, 773 (1860) (requiring that property be offered for sale “until all
the taxes shall have been paid”); see also O’Brien v. Coulter, 2 Blackf.
421, 425 (Ind. 1831) (per curiam) (“[S]o much only of the defendant’s
property shall be sold at one time, as a sound judgment would dictate to
be sufficient to pay the debt.”).
   3 North Carolina amended its laws in 1842 to permit the forfeiture of
                    Cite as: 598 U. S. ____ (2023)                   9

                         Opinion of the Court

Maine amended its law a decade later to permit the former
owner to recover the surplus. 1848 Me. Laws p. 56, §4. And
Mississippi’s highest court promptly struck down its law for
violating the Due Process and Takings Clauses of the Mis-
sissippi Constitution. See Griffin v. Mixon, 38 Miss. 424,
439, 451–452 (Ct. Err. & App. 1860). Louisiana’s statute
remained on the books, but the County cites no case show-
ing that the statute was actually enforced against a tax-
payer to take his entire property.
  The minority rule then remains the minority rule today:
Thirty-six States and the Federal Government require that
the excess value be returned to the taxpayer.
                              C
   Our precedents have also recognized the principle that a
taxpayer is entitled to the surplus in excess of the debt
owed. In United States v. Taylor, 104 U. S. 216 (1881), an
Arkansas taxpayer whose property had been sold to satisfy
a tax debt sought to recover the surplus from the sale. A
nationwide tax had been imposed by Congress in 1861 to
raise funds for the Civil War. Under that statute, if a tax-
payer did not pay, his property would be sold and “the sur-
plus of the proceeds of the sale [would] be paid to the
owner.” Act of Aug. 5, 1861, §36, 12 Stat. 304. The next
year, Congress added a 50 percent penalty in the rebelling
States, but made no mention of the owner’s right to surplus
after a tax sale. See Act of June 7, 1862, §1, 12 Stat. 422.
Taylor’s property had been sold for failure to pay taxes un-
der the 1862 Act, but he sought to recover the surplus under
the 1861 Act. Though the 1862 Act “ma[de] no mention of
the right of the owner of the lands to receive the surplus
proceeds of their sale,” we held that the taxpayer was enti-
tled to the surplus because nothing in the 1862 Act took
——————
unregistered “swamp lands,” 1842 N. C. Sess. Laws p. 64, §1, but other-
wise continued to follow the majority rule, see 1792 N. C. Sess. Laws
p. 23, §5.
10              TYLER v. HENNEPIN COUNTY

                      Opinion of the Court

“from the owner the right accorded him by the act of 1861,
of applying for and receiving from the treasury the surplus
proceeds of the sale of his lands.” Taylor, 104 U. S., at 218–
219.
   We extended a taxpayer’s right to surplus even further in
United States v. Lawton, 110 U. S. 146 (1884). The property
owner had an unpaid tax bill under the 1862 Act for
$170.50. Id., at 148. The Federal Government seized the
taxpayer’s property and, instead of selling it to a private
buyer, kept the property for itself at a value of $1100. Ibid.
The property owner sought to recover the excess value from
the Government, but the Government refused. Ibid. The
1861 Act explicitly provided that any surplus from tax sales
to private parties had to be returned to the owner, but it did
not mention paying the property owner the excess value
where the Government kept the property for its own use in-
stead of selling it. See 12 Stat. 304. We held that the tax-
payer was still entitled to the surplus under the statute,
just as if the Government had sold the property. Lawton,
110 U. S., at 149–150. Though the 1861 statute did not ex-
plicitly provide the right to the surplus under such circum-
stances, “[t]o withhold the surplus from the owner would be
to violate the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution and to
deprive him of his property without due process of law, or
to take his property for public use without just compensa-
tion.” Id., at 150.
   The County argues that Taylor and Lawton were super-
seded by Nelson v. City of New York, 352 U. S. 103 (1956),
but that case is readily distinguished. There New York City
foreclosed on properties for unpaid water bills. Under the
governing ordinance, a property owner had almost two
months after the city filed for foreclosure to pay off the tax
debt, and an additional 20 days to ask for the surplus from
any tax sale. Id., at 104–105, n. 1. No property owner re-
quested his surplus within the required time. The owners
later sued the city, claiming that it had denied them due
                 Cite as: 598 U. S. ____ (2023)           11

                     Opinion of the Court

process and equal protection of the laws. Id., at 109. In
their reply brief before this Court, the owners also argued
for the first time that they had been denied just compensa-
tion under the Takings Clause. Ibid.
   We rejected this belated argument. Lawton had sug-
gested that withholding the surplus from a property owner
always violated the Fifth Amendment, but there was no
specific procedure there for recovering the surplus. Nelson,
352 U. S., at 110. New York City’s ordinance, in compari-
son, permitted the owner to recover the surplus but re-
quired that the owner have “filed a timely answer in [the]
foreclosure proceeding, asserting his property had a value
substantially exceeding the tax due.” Ibid. (citing New York
v. Chapman Docks Co., 1 App. Div. 2d 895, 149 N. Y. S. 2d
679 (1956)). Had the owners challenging the ordinance
done so, “a separate sale” could have taken place “so that
[they] might receive the surplus.” 352 U. S., at 110. The
owners did not take advantage of this procedure, so they
forfeited their right to the surplus. Because the New York
City ordinance did not “absolutely preclud[e] an owner from
obtaining the surplus proceeds of a judicial sale,” but in-
stead simply defined the process through which the owner
could claim the surplus, we found no Takings Clause viola-
tion. Ibid.
   Unlike in Nelson, Minnesota’s scheme provides no oppor-
tunity for the taxpayer to recover the excess value; once ab-
solute title has transferred to the State, any excess value
always remains with the State. The County argues that the
delinquent taxpayer could sell her house to pay her tax debt
before the County itself seizes and sells the house. But re-
quiring a taxpayer to sell her house to avoid a taking is not
the same as providing her an opportunity to recover the ex-
cess value of her house once the State has sold it.
12              TYLER v. HENNEPIN COUNTY

                      Opinion of the Court

                               D
   Finally, Minnesota law itself recognizes that in other con-
texts a property owner is entitled to the surplus in excess of
her debt. Under state law, a private creditor may enforce a
judgment against a debtor by selling her real property, but
“[n]o more shall be sold than is sufficient to satisfy” the
debt, and the creditor may receive only “so much [of the pro-
ceeds] as will satisfy” the debt. Minn. Stat. §§550.20,
550.08 (2022). Likewise, if a bank forecloses on a home be-
cause the homeowner fails to pay the mortgage, the home-
owner is entitled to the surplus from the sale. §580.10.
   In collecting all other taxes, Minnesota protects the tax-
payer’s right to surplus. If a taxpayer falls behind on her
income tax and the State seizes and sells her property,
“[a]ny surplus proceeds . . . shall . . . be credited or re-
funded” to the owner. §§270C.7101, 270C.7108, subd. 2. So
too if a taxpayer does not pay taxes on her personal prop-
erty, like a car. §277.21, subd. 13. Until 1935, Minnesota
followed the same rule for the sale of real property. The
State could sell only the “least quantity” of land sufficient
to satisfy the debt, 1859 Minn. Laws p. 58, §23, and “any
surplus realized from the sale must revert to the owner,”
Farnham, 32 Minn., at 11, 19 N. W., at 85.
   The State now makes an exception only for itself, and
only for taxes on real property. But “property rights cannot
be so easily manipulated.” Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid,
594 U. S. ___, ___ (2021) (slip op., at 13) (internal quotation
marks omitted). Minnesota may not extinguish a property
interest that it recognizes everywhere else to avoid paying
just compensation when it is the one doing the taking. Phil-
lips, 524 U. S., at 167.
                          IV
  The County argues that Tyler has no interest in the sur-
plus because she constructively abandoned her home by
                  Cite as: 598 U. S. ____ (2023)            13

                      Opinion of the Court

failing to pay her taxes. States and localities have long im-
posed “reasonable conditions” on property ownership. Tex-
aco, Inc. v. Short, 454 U. S. 516, 526 (1982). In Minnesota,
one of those conditions is paying property taxes. By neglect-
ing this reasonable condition, the County argues, the owner
can be considered to have abandoned her property and is
therefore not entitled to any compensation for its taking.
See Minn. Stat. §282.08.
  The County portrays this as just another example in the
long tradition of States taking title to abandoned property.
We upheld one such statutory scheme in Texaco. There, In-
diana law dictated that a mineral interest automatically re-
verted to the owner of the land if not used for 20 years. 454
U. S., at 518. Use included excavating minerals, renting
out the right to excavate, paying taxes, or simply filing a
“statement of claim with the local recorder of deeds.” Id.,
at 519. Owners who lost their mineral interests challenged
the statute as unconstitutional. We held that the statute
did not violate the Takings Clause because the State “has
the power to condition the permanent retention of [a] prop-
erty right on the performance of reasonable conditions that
indicate a present intention to retain the interest.” Id., at
526 (emphasis added). Indiana reasonably “treat[ed] a min-
eral interest that ha[d] not been used for 20 years and for
which no statement of claim ha[d] been filed as abandoned.”
Id., at 530. There was thus no taking, for “after abandon-
ment, the former owner retain[ed] no interest for which he
may claim compensation.” Ibid.
  The County suggests that here, too, Tyler constructively
abandoned her property by failing to comply with a reason-
able condition imposed by the State. But the County cites
no case suggesting that failing to pay property taxes is itself
sufficient for abandonment. Cf. Krueger v. Market, 124
Minn. 393, 397, 145 N. W. 30, 32 (1914) (owner did not
abandon property despite failing to pay taxes for 30 years).
Abandonment requires the “surrender or relinquishment or
14              TYLER v. HENNEPIN COUNTY

                      Opinion of the Court

disclaimer of ” all rights in the property. Rowe v. Minneap-
olis, 49 Minn. 148, 157, 51 N. W. 907, 908 (1892). “It is the
owner’s failure to make any use of the property”—and for a
lengthy period of time—“that causes the lapse of the prop-
erty right.” Texaco, 454 U. S., at 530 (emphasis added). In
Texaco, the owners lost their property because they made
no use of their interest for 20 years and then failed to take
the simple step of filing paperwork indicating that they still
claimed ownership over the interest. In comparison, Min-
nesota’s forfeiture scheme is not about abandonment at all.
It gives no weight to the taxpayer’s use of the property. In-
deed, the delinquent taxpayer can continue to live in her
house for years after falling behind in taxes, up until the
government sells it. See §281.70. Minnesota cares only
about the taxpayer’s failure to contribute her share to the
public fisc. The County cannot frame that failure as aban-
donment to avoid the demands of the Takings Clause.
                        *    *     *
   The Takings Clause “was designed to bar Government
from forcing some people alone to bear public burdens
which, in all fairness and justice, should be borne by the
public as a whole.” Armstrong, 364 U. S., at 49. A taxpayer
who loses her $40,000 house to the State to fulfill a $15,000
tax debt has made a far greater contribution to the public
fisc than she owed. The taxpayer must render unto Caesar
what is Caesar’s, but no more.
   Because we find that Tyler has plausibly alleged a taking
under the Fifth Amendment, and she agrees that relief un-
der “the Takings Clause would fully remedy [her] harm,”
we need not decide whether she has also alleged an exces-
sive fine under the Eighth Amendment. Tr. of Oral Arg. 27.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
is reversed.
                                            It is so ordered.
                 Cite as: 598 U. S. ____ (2023)           1

                   GORSUCH, J., concurring

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
                         _________________

                          No. 22–166
                         _________________

   GERALDINE TYLER, PETITIONER v. HENNEPIN
          COUNTY, MINNESOTA, ET AL.
 ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF
           APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
                        [May 25, 2023]

  JUSTICE GORSUCH, with whom JUSTICE JACKSON joins,
concurring.
  The Court reverses the Eighth Circuit’s dismissal of Ger-
aldine Tyler’s suit and holds that she has plausibly alleged
a violation of the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause. I
agree. Given its Takings Clause holding, the Court under-
standably declines to pass on the question whether the
Eighth Circuit committed a further error when it dismissed
Ms. Tyler’s claim under the Eighth Amendment’s Excessive
Fines Clause. Ante, at 14. But even a cursory review of the
District Court’s excessive-fines analysis—which the Eighth
Circuit adopted as “well-reasoned,” 26 F. 4th 789, 794
(2022)—reveals that it too contains mistakes future lower
courts should not be quick to emulate.
  First, the District Court concluded that the Minnesota
tax-forfeiture scheme is not punitive because “its primary
purpose” is “remedial”—aimed, in other words, at “compen-
sat[ing] the government for lost revenues due to the non-
payment of taxes.” 505 F. Supp. 3d 879, 896 (Minn. 2020).
That primary-purpose test finds no support in our law. Be-
cause “sanctions frequently serve more than one purpose,”
this Court has said that the Excessive Fines Clause applies
to any statutory scheme that “serv[es] in part to punish.”
Austin v. United States, 509 U. S. 602, 610 (1993) (emphasis
added). It matters not whether the scheme has a remedial
2               TYLER v. HENNEPIN COUNTY

                    GORSUCH, J., concurring

purpose, even a predominantly remedial purpose. So long
as the law “cannot fairly be said solely to serve a remedial
purpose,” the Excessive Fines Clause applies. Ibid. (em-
phasis added; internal quotation marks omitted). Nor, this
Court has held, is it appropriate to label sanctions as “re-
medial” when (as here) they bear “ ‘no correlation to any
damages sustained by society or to the cost of enforcing the
law,’ ” and “any relationship between the Government’s ac-
tual costs and the amount of the sanction is merely coinci-
dental.” Id., at 621–622, and n. 14.
   Second, the District Court asserted that the Minnesota
tax-forfeiture scheme cannot “be punitive because it actu-
ally confers a windfall on the delinquent taxpayer when the
value of the property that is forfeited is less than the
amount of taxes owed.” 505 F. Supp. 3d, at 896. That ob-
servation may be factually true, but it is legally irrelevant.
Some prisoners better themselves behind bars; some ad-
dicts credit court-ordered rehabilitation with saving their
lives. But punishment remains punishment all the same.
See Tr. of Oral Arg. 61. Of course, no one thinks that an
individual who profits from an economic penalty has a win-
ning excessive-fines claim. But nor has this Court ever held
that a scheme producing fines that punishes some individ-
uals can escape constitutional scrutiny merely because it
does not punish others.
   Third, the District Court appears to have inferred that
the Minnesota scheme is not “punitive” because it does not
turn on the “culpability” of the individual property owner.
505 F. Supp. 3d, at 897. But while a focus on “culpability”
can sometimes make a provision “look more like punish-
ment,” this Court has never endorsed the converse view.
Austin, 509 U. S., at 619. Even without emphasizing culpa-
bility, this Court has said a statutory scheme may still be
punitive where it serves another “goal of punishment,” such
as “[d]eterrence.” United States v. Bajakajian, 524 U. S.
321, 329 (1998). And the District Court expressly approved
                 Cite as: 598 U. S. ____ (2023)            3

                   GORSUCH, J., concurring

the Minnesota tax-forfeiture scheme in this case in large
part because “ ‘the ultimate possibility of loss of property
serves as a deterrent to those taxpayers considering tax de-
linquency.’ ” 505 F. Supp. 3d, at 899 (emphasis added).
Economic penalties imposed to deter willful noncompliance
with the law are fines by any other name. And the Consti-
tution has something to say about them: They cannot be
excessive.