Showing 17 posts in SCOTUS.

Sixth Circuit Applies Recent SCOTUS Tax-Taking Decision to Affirm an Owner’s Right to Net Tax Lien Foreclosure Proceeds

September 11, 2023 by Michael J. McKleroy, Samuel C. Bodurtha

We previously reported on the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision, Tyler v. Hennepin County, where the court concluded that the State of Minnesota violated a property owner’s constitutional rights by keeping the excess sale proceeds from a tax lien sale. Following Tyler v. Hennepin County, the Sixth Circuit, in Freed v. Thomas, affirmed a lower court’s holding that a Michigan county similarly violated the Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause. Freed owed the County roughly $1,100 in property taxes. The County foreclosed its tax lien and sold Freed’s property at public auction for $42,000 in accordance with Michigan’s General Property Tax Act. The County refused to pay Freed the roughly $40,000 over and above his tax debt. Freed sued the County, claiming that retaining the excess proceeds was an unconstitutional taking in violation of the Fifth Amendment and an excessive fine in violation of the Eighth Amendment. More ›

SCOTUS Finds that Minnesota Tax Lien Statute Violates the Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause

June 1, 2023 by Michael J. McKleroy, Samuel C. Bodurtha

In Tyler v. Hennepin County, a unanimous U.S. Supreme Court concluded that the State of Minnesota violated a property owner's constitutional rights by keeping the excess proceeds from a tax lien sale. Geraldine Tyler owned a condominium in Hennepin County, Minnesota, but when she and her family decided she should move into a senior community in 2010, property taxes went unpaid. By 2015, Tyler owed the county $2,300 in unpaid taxes and $13,000 in accumulated interest and penalties. The county then seized and sold the condo for $40,000, extinguished the debt Tyler owed but retained all excess proceeds totaling $25,000 for its own use. Under Minnesota law, any excess tax sale proceeds could be split between the county, the town, and the school district. More ›

A Circuit Split Emerges on the Constitutionality of the CFPB's Funding Structure, Months Before the Issue Comes Before the U.S. Supreme Court

March 31, 2023 by Emilia Rubin, Vaishali S. Rao

On March 23, 2023, the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued a decision in CFPB v. Law Offices of Crystal Moroney (Moroney). The case reviewed constitutional challenges to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's (CFPB) funding structure previously decided by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals last October in Community Financial Services Association of America, Ltd. v. CFPB (Community Financial). In Community Financial, the Fifth Circuit vacated the CFPB's 2017 "Payday Lending Rule" on the grounds that it was invalid "as the product of the Bureau's unconstitutional funding scheme." The CFPB's petition for writ of certiorari was granted by the U.S. Supreme Court in February. More ›

SCOTUS Decision in Student Loan Forgiveness Cases May Hinge on Article III Standing

March 2, 2023 by Vaishali S. Rao, Sarah E. King

On February 28th, 2023, the United States Supreme Court heard oral arguments in two related cases, Biden v. Nebraska and Department of Education v. Brown, both of which challenge President Biden's one-time student loan forgiveness program. More ›

Eleventh Circuit Orders En Banc Rehearing of Hunstein Case and Vacates Opinion

November 17, 2021 by David M. Schultz, Justin M. Penn, Barbara Fernandez

Today, Hunstein took another unique—but favorable—turn for the debt collection industry. The Eleventh Circuit Court of appeals issued an order vacating its last opinion in Hunstein vs. Preferred Collection & Management Services, Inc, and ordered the case to be reheard en banc. More ›

In TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, U.S. Supreme Court Holds "No Harm, No Foul"

June 28, 2021 by Barbara Fernandez

In a special edition of our Consumer Law Hinsights newsletter, we cover the U.S. Supreme Court decision in TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez that was announced last Friday. The Court held "no concrete harm, no standing" in a significant check on federal consumer class actions. Read our analysis.

SCOTUS Narrows Autodialer Definition under the TCPA

April 5, 2021 by Lauren Campisi

We analyze in this client advisory the recent decision by a unanimous U.S. Supreme Court to narrow the definition of what constitutes an automatic telephone dialing system, or autodialer. Our analysis includes a take on the potential impacts of the decision, as well as the significance of a Democratic Party-controlled FCC. We note that the TCPA has not gone away and callers should continue to carefully consider how best to comply with its provisions to avoid further litigation and regulatory risk.

SCOTUS Decides Federal Debt is not Exempted from TCPA, While FCC Autodialer Declaration Further Alters TCPA Landscape

July 9, 2020 by Vaishali S. Rao

With a major U.S. Supreme Court decision leading the way, recent developments continue to reshape the landscape of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). More ›

FCC Clarifies Autodialer Definition, Including in Bulk Text Message Context

July 8, 2020 by Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) recently issued a Declaratory Ruling clarifying the definition of an autodialer. Exactly what constitutes an autodialer under the TCPA has been a burgeoning topic in consumer litigation. The TCPA prohibits any person from texting or calling a cellular telephone number using an automatic dialing system (“autodialer” or “ATDS”) without prior express consent. The TCPA defines an ATDS as equipment which has the capacity to (A) to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator; and (B) to dial such numbers. More ›

SCOTUS Holds CFPB's Single Director Structure Unconstitutional, Leaves Open Questions on Existing Bureau Matters

June 29, 2020 by Vaishali S. Rao

Earlier today, the United States Supreme Court issued a two part decision in Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. The Court first decided, in a 5-4 decision with Chief Justice Roberts authoring the Court's opinion, that the CFPB's leadership by a single Director removable only for inefficiency, neglect, or malfeasance violates the separation of powers doctrine. The Court next decided that the Director's unconstitutional removal protection is severable from the other provisions of Dodd-Frank that establish the CFPB and define its authority. The severability holding was also authored by Roberts, but drew a 7-2 split. More ›

Search

Subscribe via Email

RSSSubscribe via RSS
TwitterFollow us on Twitter

Blog Editors

Blog Contributors

Archives