Supreme Court rejects a push to require higher prices on tax foreclosure sales
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Tuesday rejected an effort to change tax foreclosure sales to let homeowners to keep more money when their property is sold to recoup unpaid taxes.
The high court ruled against a sweeping argument from a Michigan family whose house was sold for less than half its open-market value to cover an unpaid tax bill of just over $2,000. They argued the foreclosure violated their rights because the house would have fetched a higher price of nearly $200,000 if sold through typical real-estate channels.
The Supreme Court unanimously found that people aren’t entitled to recoup a “hypothetical fair market value” of homes sold at auction to cover unpaid taxes. Auctions are designed to be a relatively quick way to collect unpaid taxes, and requiring local governments to get the higher fair-market value might make them unworkable, Justice Samuel Alito wrote.
“The traditional rule, under which the taxpayer receives only the difference between the auction sale price and unpaid taxes, is ‘just,’” he wrote.
The sale, though, must be conducted fairly, he wrote. The court sent the Pung family’s case back to lower courts to reassess the process used by Isabella County. Justice Clarence Thomas, joined by Neil Gorsuch, wrote separately to raise doubts about the constitutionality of the foreclosure process.
“The case isn’t over,” said Larry Salzman, vice president for litigation at the Pacific Legal Foundation, which represented the family. “The Pungs won the right to continue their fight in the lower courts.”
The county maintained that auction sale prices are always lower than open real estate transactions, in part because they typically require full cash payment rather than a mortgage.
Officials make “herculean efforts to help homeowners avoid foreclosure,” said attorney Matthew Nelson, who represented the county. “But at the end of the day, foreclosure is a tool that needs to remain in their toolboxes.”
He said the county’s actions would withstand further scrutiny. “We are confident the process Isabella County followed in this case exceeded what the law required.”
The case comes about three years after another major foreclosure case where the justices ruled against local governments. The court found counties can’t keep tax sale proceeds beyond what the owner owes in unpaid taxes.
That case centered on a 94-year-old Minnesota woman whose county government kept about $40,000 in proceeds from the sale of her condominium after she failed to pay about $2,300 in taxes.
Supreme Court sides with Trump administration on immigration case dealing with green card holders
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court sided with the Trump administration Tuesday in an immigration case dealing with the government’s power over green card holders accused of crimes.
The 6-3 decision centers on an immigration officers’ 2012 decision to put lawful permanent resident Muk Choi Lau on immigration parole when he returned from a short trip to China because he had been accused of a counterfeiting crime.
Lau argued that the officer overstepped their authority, and the decision wrongly allowed the Department of Homeland Security under then-President Barack Obama an easier path to removal after he pleaded guilty to selling counterfeit clothes in New Jersey.
The high court disagreed. “Border officers did not have the burden to establish by clear and convincing evidence that Lau had committed a crime involving moral turpitude,” Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in the opinion.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented, writing that the decision to put Lau on immigration parole effectively sentenced him to “immigration limbo” before he’d been convicted of any crime.
“I worry that the Court has now handed the Government a massive blank check,” she wrote in the dissent joined by her two liberal colleagues.
The liberal group Alliance for Justice echoed that concern, saying the ruling could provide an expanded path for revoking green cards.
But Advancing American Freedom, a group founded by former Republican Vice President Mike Pence, called it an important case to allow the removal of people who “abuse the privilege of being granted lawful permanent resident status.”
The decision comes as the high court considers a series of immigration-related issues against the backdrop of President Donald Trump’s sweeping immigration crackdown, though this case started before Trump took office.
His administration argued that suspicion of a crime is enough to put a lawful permanent resident, also known as a green-card holder, on immigration parole. Federal attorneys urged the court to take an expansive view of executive authority over immigration.
The court is also considering cases over Trump’s push to end birthright citizenship, potentially revive a restrictive asylum policy and end temporary legal protections for migrants fleeing war and natural disasters in their homelands.
Supreme Court OKs Exxon Mobil lawsuit over Cuban property seized by Fidel Castro’s government
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Tuesday ruled that Exxon Mobil can sue Cuban state-owned companies in American courts over property on the island nation that was seized after Fidel Castro took power.
The 6-3 decision was the second in as many months in favor of U.S. owners of Cuban property that was confiscated by the Communist government more than 65 years ago.
The outcome in the two cases could be an additional lever for the Trump administration to exert pressure on Cuba, which is already being squeezed by a U.S. oil embargo.
At issue was whether the 1996 law known as Helms-Burton removes the shield from lawsuits in U.S. courts that typically cover foreign countries and state-owned businesses. The justices reversed a lower-court ruling that found that the Cuban state-owned companies are immune from lawsuits in U.S. courts.
Exxon Mobil is seeking compensation for the confiscation of assets owned by subsidiaries of Standard Oil, Exxon Mobil’s predecessor, including more than 100 service stations and an oil refinery.
Last month, the court ruled in another case involving confiscated property in Cuba, reviving claims by the U.S. company that operated docks in Havana against four cruise lines that brought tourists to Cuba during the brief thaw in relations during the Obama administration. That case turned on the same section of Helms-Burton allowing lawsuits over seized property.
Congress passed the law in response to the 1996 downing of civilian planes flown by Miami-based exiles.
Title III of the law allows Americans to sue almost any company that engages in commercial activity or benefits from property confiscated by Cuba’s government.
Before the first Trump administration, every president had suspended the provision because of objections from U.S. allies doing business in Cuba and the effect on future negotiated settlements between the U.S. and Cuba.
But Trump lifted the suspension in 2019, and Exxon Mobil filed its lawsuit the same day.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote for the conservative majority that it “would make little sense” if the law allowed the president to decide whether suits can proceed against Cuban interests while also protecting them.
Justice Elena Kagan wrote in a dissent for the three liberals that the 1996 law simply contains no provision eliminating the sovereign immunity shield.
The U.S. Foreign Claims Settlement Commission, an arm of the Justice Department, said in 1969 that the value of Exxon Mobil’s property in Cuba is $71.6 million, plus 6% annual interest beginning in 1960. That would be worth more than $1 billion today, Kavanaugh wrote.
In addition, the commission found that nearly 6,000 individuals and businesses held claims worth $1.9 billion, before adding in interest or damages.
