EDITORIAL: High court can rein in greedy local governments

Pity the attorney who gets it from all sides while arguing in front of the U.S. Supreme Court. But possibly if you do not have the law or the truths in your quiver, you deserve your fate.

On Wednesday, the justices heard a Minnesota case involving a 94-year-old widow who stopped paying real estate tax on a condominium she owned after she moved into an assisted care complex. Hennepin County ultimately took the domicile over the tax expense, which amounted to about $15,000, consisting of fees and fines.

What occurred next, nevertheless, would appear more suitable for an accomplished grifter than a regional government. Hennepin County sold Geraldine Tyler's condo for $40,000 and swiped the whole amount.

A lawyer for Ms. Tyler argued that simply due to the fact that Minnesota lawmakers in 1936 enacted a law sanctioning such theft doesn't mean the statute passes constitutional muster. Any money recuperated in excess of what was owed need to be returned to Ms. Tyler, her legal representatives maintained.

Enter Neal K. Katyal, charged with safeguarding the county's actions.

From the left, Justice Elena Kagan asked whether the federal government might seize a $5 million house over a $5,000 tax financial obligation. Mr. Katyal "said that would not contravene of the profits provision," The New York Times reported. From the right, Justice Brett Kavanaugh appeared skeptical of Mr. Katyal's efforts to distinguish between seizures of money and home. "Why would we check out the Constitution to disfavor real estate, though?" he asked. "That appears very counterproductive."

Ms. Tyler's case is not an aberration. Her lawyers likewise highlighted a separate occurrence in which a Michigan county foreclosed on a home over a $8.41 tax financial obligation and after that proceeded to bank the whole sales price when the home was later acquired for $25,000 at auction.

If it permits such injustices to stand in the face of plainly articulated constitutional securities against government takings and excessive fines, the court will be sanctioning legalized looting. The taxman has an interest in gathering his bounty, however that should not require unrestricted access to a criminal's savings account.

Justices from throughout the political spectrum seemed on the very same page in this case. They must strike a resounding blow for property rights and send a clear message to city governments by ordering the county to make Ms. Tyler whole.