By Angela Adolph, Esq. of Kean Miller LLP Recent federal court decisions reveal diverging interpretations of how a landmark Supreme Court ruling on the Fifth Amendment’s takings clause affects state administration of unclaimed property. Taken together, the cases expose state governments to uncertainty and litigation risk over the constitutional limits of their authority. Property, Post-Tyler The current ambiguity reflects increased national scrutiny of state powers in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court’s pivotal 2023 decision in Tyler vs. Hennepin County, Minnesota. In that case, the county had seized a residential condominium and sold it for $40,000 to satisfy $15,000 in unpaid property taxes. The former owner sought the $25,000 in residual sale proceeds. The Supreme Court found that a taxpayer’s compensable interest in property applies to both the property and equity in the form of excess proceeds generated from a forfeiture sale of that asset. The decision clarified that economic value is property subject to the takings clause, which prohibits taking private property for public use without just compensation. In Tyler, the Supreme Court emphasized that the takings clause protects more than physical possession; it also protects a citizen’s economic value in property. A state cannot deprive a citizen …
