Does the Fifth Amendment Takings Clause require the government to compensate a taxpayer based on the fair market value of their property or the actual auction sale price following a tax foreclosure? Additionally, does the failure to provide compensation based on fair market value constitute an excessive fine under the Eighth Amendment? The Court must determine the constitutional baseline for "just compensation" in the context of tax sales.

• Just compensation under the Fifth Amendment should be measured by the property's fair market value rather than an "artificially depressed" auction price.
• The forfeiture of real property worth significantly more than the tax debt, sold for a fraction of its value, constitutes an excessive fine under the Eighth Amendment.
• The County should have attempted to recover the debt through less drastic means, such as seizing personal property or placing a lien, before selling the home.
• The County's failure to provide fair market value compensation violates the constitutional requirement to make the owner whole.

• The proper measure of just compensation in a tax sale is the surplus proceeds—the difference between the auction price and the tax debt.
• The Michigan tax-foreclosure regime is not punitive and therefore does not fall within the ambit of the Eighth Amendment.
• The government's actions were consistent with longstanding historical practices of tax collection.
• Requiring fair market value compensation would impose unprecedented burdens on local governments and render tax sales as a debt-collection mechanism infeasible.

• The proper baseline for "just compensation" under the Takings Clause is the auction sale price, provided the sale is fairly conducted in light of the country's history of tax sales.
• The Court relied on centuries of English and American law allowing the seizure and sale of property for taxes, provided the government returns any surplus proceeds to the debtor.
• The Court cited early federal statutes, including the Act of May 4, 1812, the Act of Jan. 9, 1815, the Act of July 13, 1866, and Rev. Stat. §3195, which required refunding only the "surplus of the proceeds of the sale."
• Precedents such as *United States v. Taylor*, *United States v. Lawton*, *Nelson v. City of New York*, and *BFP v. Resolution Trust Corporation* establish that owners are entitled to surplus proceeds and nothing more.
• The Court rejected the use of fair market value, noting that owners can generally avoid tax sales by refinancing the property or selling it themselves before foreclosure.
• The Court reasoned that a fair-market-value rule would be "perverse," as the government could net a loss on a tax sale and be forced to pay the delinquent taxpayer.
• Regarding the Eighth Amendment, the Court held that a fairly conducted tax sale does not violate the Excessive Fines Clause.
• The Court invoked *Austin v. United States* to note that while forfeiture can be a "fine" if it serves "in part to punish," there is no historical evidence that traditional tax sales are punitive.