“If the tax bill was 100 bucks, would you still take the house?”
This was the question Justice Amy Coney Barrett asked the attorney representing Isabella County, Michigan, in a recent oral argument before the U.S. Supreme Court.
Mackinac Center staff made the trip to Washington, D.C., to witness arguments on February 25 in Pung v. Isabella County — a case that asks whether the government can disregard property value and take far more than the taxpayer owes.
In 2015, Isabella County foreclosed on the Pung family home over roughly $2,000 in disputed property taxes that a state tribunal had already confirmed were exempt. The county — which had previously assessed the home at nearly $200,000 — sold it for just $76,000 and initially kept the proceeds, leaving the family with nothing.
The Supreme Court is now weighing whether the taking violated the U.S. Constitution and whether the Pungs are owed compensation for the equity they lost.
The Mackinac Center Legal Foundation filed an amicus brief in the case, offering Michigan-specific regulatory context to supplement the arguments already before the court. Its brief is the kind of targeted, substantive contribution that can sharpen a court’s understanding of how a ruling will play out on the ground.
Members of the court could place meaningful limits on how far governments may go when collecting delinquent taxes, particularly when the amount owed bears no resemblance to the value of the taking. Several justices joked about why the county didn’t first consider inspecting the house and taking something of comparable value — such as a Peloton bike — before moving to foreclose on the family home.
After the session closed, petitioning attorney Philip Lee Ellison, who led oral argument on behalf of the Pung family, spoke with Mackinac Center staffers on the steps of the Supreme Court about what our work did for the case.
“Mackinac Center did a >really fantastic job writing about how Michiganspecific laws work,” Ellison said. “While I’m here on a Michigan case, I’m arguing a nationwide rule. Mackinac gave us the opportunity to focus on the bigger picture.”
Being present mattered. Showing up, driving to Washington to stand alongside the families and attorneys fighting these battles, reflects something real about the Mackinac Center’s commitment to the people affected by these issues. Property rights aren’t abstractions. Violated rights cost the Pung family their home.
The court’s decision is expected by July.
