Case: Michael Pung, Personal Representative of the Estate of Timothy Scott Pung v. Isabella County, Michigan, No. 25-95
Lower Court: Sixth Circuit
Docketed: 2025-07-24
Status: Granted
Question Presented: 1. Whether taking and selling a home to satisfy a debt to the government, and keeping the surplus value as a windfall, violates the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment when the compensation is based on the artificially depressed auction sale price rather than the property's fair market value? 2. Whether the forfeiture of real property worth far more than needed to satisfy a tax debt but sold for fraction of its real value constitutes an excessive fine under the Eighth Amendment, particularly when the debt was never actually owed?
On February 25, 2026, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Pung v. Isabella County. The argument featured divided time, with the Solicitor General’s office participating as amicus curiae after the Court granted that motion on January 26. The federal government’s decision to seek argument time signals that the constitutional questions here carry weight beyond Michigan’s particular forfeiture statute. Full case details are available on the Supreme Court docket and at Oyez.
The underlying facts involve Isabella County’s seizure and auction of Timothy Scott Pung’s home to satisfy a tax debt. The county retained the full auction proceeds, including any value exceeding the debt owed. The petitioner contends the auction price was artificially depressed relative to fair market value, and that the county’s retention of the surplus constituted an uncompensated taking.
The two questions presented track distinct constitutional theories. The Takings Clause question asks whether “just compensation” must be measured by fair market value rather than a distressed auction price. The Eighth Amendment question asks whether retaining surplus proceeds from a property sold for a fraction of its value constitutes an excessive fine, particularly where the underlying debt was allegedly never owed. Twenty-six amicus briefs were filed, with local governments and several states defending the practice on the respondent’s side.
The breadth of amicus participation reflects how widely states and counties rely on similar forfeiture mechanisms. A ruling requiring fair market value compensation, or treating surplus retention as an excessive fine, would require many jurisdictions to restructure their tax collection procedures.