CAC Release: Supreme Court Oral Argument Focuses on Takings Clause, While Largely ...

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Pung v. Isabella County, focusing primarily on the Takings Clause rather than the Excessive Fines Clause of the Eighth Amendment. Legal advocates suggest the case presents an opportunity for the Court to clarify the proper legal standard for what constitutes a fine, especially in relation to property seizures for tax debts. The Court's decision could impact interpretations of government sanctions and the application of constitutional protections against excessive fines.

Rule of Law

CAC Release: Supreme Court Oral Argument Focuses on Takings Clause, While Largely Ignoring the Problematic Excessive-Fines-Clause Analysis Applied by the Court Below

WASHINGTON, DC – Following oral argument at the Supreme Court this morning in Pung v. Isabella County, a case in which the Court is considering whether the Excessive Fines Clause of the Eighth Amendment is implicated when a local government seizes real property to satisfy a tax debt and then merely reimburses the property owner with the remainder of the auction sale proceeds, as opposed to the full fair market value of the property, Constitutional Accountability Center Senior Appellate Counsel Miriam Becker-Cohen issued the following reaction:

Although the Supreme Court today was focused on the Takings Clause issue in this case, there is another important issue presented. As we explained in our amicus brief, the court below used an ahistorical and overly simplistic test to ascertain whether the government’s seizure of the Pung family home amounted to a “fine” within the meaning of the Excessive Fines Clause.

The proper test for whether an economic sanction is a “fine” under the Eighth Amendment is whether it serves at least

in partas punishment. A sanction may be a “fine” whether or not it is tied to criminal behavior, and whether or not itsmainpurpose is punitive.This case presents an opportunity for the Supreme Court to set the record straight on the proper legal analysis for what constitutes a fine within the meaning of the Eighth Amendment without even reaching the question of whether the scheme at issue here is

in facta fine. It should do so.

More from Rule of Law

February 24, 2026WASHINGTON, DC — Today marks one month since the killing of Alex Pretti on January...

50+ Organizations Condemn Federal Authorities for Blocking Minnesota’s Independent Investigation into CBP Killing of Alex Pretti

February 20, 2026WASHINGTON, DC – Following today’s decision at the Supreme Court in Learning Resources v. Trump and Trump...

CAC Release: Supreme Court Rejects President Trump’s Claim of Unilateral Tariff Authority

U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia CircuitIn Climate United Fund v. Citibank, the en banc United States of Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit is considering whether the Trump administration can unilaterally abolish a mandatory grant program created by Congress.

Climate United Fund v. Citibank

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitIn Oregon v. Landis, the Ninth Circuit is considering when states may prosecute federal officers for state crimes.

Oregon v. Landis

February 4, 2026“Every single ICE and CBP agent should be out of Minnesota,” the congresswoman said. “The...

‘This Occupation Has to End!’ Omar Argues After Homan Says Most Agents Will Stay in Minnesota

January 29, 2026With administration officials saying agents are immune to accountability, many are understandably wondering: What rights...