MIDLAND, Mich. — The U.S. Supreme Court strengthened protections for private property owners today with its decisions in the cases Tyler v. Hennepin County and Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency. The Mackinac Center for Public Policy and the National Taxpayers Union Foundation filed an amicus brief in Tyler v. Hennepin County.

The decision in Tyler v. Hennepin County vindicates Geraldine Tyler, a 94-year-old woman who moved into a senior community after her neighborhood began experiencing a rise in crime. After she moved, no one paid taxes on her condo. This resulted in a $15,000 debt. In response, Hennepin County sold Tyler’s home for $40,000 in order to satisfy the debt and kept the remaining $25,000 for its own use.

“Today’s decision from the U.S. Supreme Court is a huge victory for property rights across the country,” said Derk Wilcox, senior attorney at the Mackinac Center. “The government can no longer enrich itself from people whose homes have been foreclosed on. For years, governments have used the foreclosure process to line their pockets while denying homeowners the true value of their homes. That scheme ends today.”

The Court stated that the county “could not use the toehold of the tax debt to confiscate more property than was due.”

In the second case, the high court upheld property rights against federal intrusion. In 2004, Michael and Chantell Sackett purchased a piece of property in Idaho where they planned to build a home. The lot contained wet areas, so the Sacketts began backfilling the property with dirt so that they could build. The Environmental Protection Agency intervened, threatening them with fines of up to $40,000 a day. The department said the wetlands on Sackett’s property had a “significant nexus” to navigable waters, which classified them as waters of the United States.

Under the “significant nexus” theory, the EPA and environmental groups claimed that the federal government’s jurisdiction was extremely broad and could extend over almost any property that has standing water or ephemeral streams. The Court rejected this theory.

The Court’s rationale in Sackett v. EPA addresses a key problem the Mackinac Center recognized in its amicus brief to the 2006 U.S. Supreme Court case Rapanos v. United States, which also concerned the Clean Water Act and "waters of the United States." The Center argued that when extraordinary authority is given to federal agencies, Congress must provide explicit language outlining the scope of that power.

The Court has adopted that concept over the years and used it today in its decision. Its reasoning was nearly identical to what was offered by the Mackinac Center over a decade and a half ago. The Court stated that Congress must “enact exceedingly clear language” if the balance between state and federal power over private property is to be altered.

“The Environmental Protection Agency can no longer weaponize the Clean Water Act to trample on the rights of private property owners,” said Jason Hayes, director of energy and environmental policy at the Mackinac Center. “For nearly two decades, the Sacketts have been fighting to be able to build a home on their property, but government bureaucracy and green tape have obstructed their efforts. This decision significantly reduces the amount of property nationwide that federal bureaucrats can control under the powers of the Clean Water Act.”

Both of these cases were brought by the Pacific Legal Foundation. The Mackinac Center is working with the Foundation on a similar home equity case that arose in Wayne County. The case is currently at the Wayne County Circuit Court.