The Supreme Court has just issued two major decisions in cases signaling this Court’s strong backing of property rights: Tyler v. Hennenpin County, Minnesota, No. 22-166, and Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency, No. 21-454. Nancie Marzulla worked with the Atlantic Legal Foundation to prepare an amicus brief in each case.
Tyler v. Hennenpin County, Minnesota, No. 22-166
Geraldine Tyler challenged a Minnesota statute that allowed local government, Hennepin County, to retain the surplus proceeds from tax sales. Tyler argued that state law violated the Fifth Amendment’s Just Compensation (taking) Clause.
The Atlantic Legal Foundation amicus brief in support of Tyler, argued that states cannot legislate away property rights or abrogate Fifth Amendment rights by simply redefining private property interests, here proceeds from a home sale, as public property. The Supreme Court unanimously held that Ms. Tyler had alleged a taking claim under the Fifth Amendment in a ruling that closely aligns with the arguments made by the Atlantic Legal Foundation in its amicus brief. In an unanimous decision, and noting that Tyler had paid her debt to the County, Chief Roberts wrote: “The taxpayer must render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s, but no more.”
The Supreme Court unanimously held that Ms. Tyler had alleged a taking claim under the Fifth Amendment in a ruling that closely aligns with the arguments made by the Atlantic Legal Foundation in its amicus brief.
Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency, No. 21-454
Sackett concerned the issue of how broadly the term “waters of the United States” under the Clean Water Act should be defined. This issue is important to property owners because the EPA and the U.S. Corps of Engineers base their regulatory authority over land use as “wetlands” directly on this definition. A broad definition means more authority to regulate land use.
The majority decision by Justice Alito upheld a plain meaning of “waters” governed the interpretation and that adjacent wetlands must have a “continuous surface connection” to constitute a water of the United States.
The Atlantic Legal Foundation filed an amicus brief in support of the Sacketts, arguing that under the overly broad definition of the term operated as a blank check in which federal agency officials could deem any land use proposal they wanted to block as a “wetland.” Highlighting the property rights implications, ALF pointed out that deeming private land a wetland often results in leaving the property owner with no remaining “economically viable uses of that land,” triggering Fifth Amendment protections. The majority decision by Justice Alito upheld a plain meaning of “waters” governed the interpretation and that adjacent wetlands must have a “continuous surface connection” to constitute a water of the United States.
