Pung v. Isabella County
Pung v. Isabella County, No. 25-95, slip op. (U.S. June 23, 2026)
- Court
- Supreme Court of the United States
- Decided
- 2026-06-23
- Docket
- 25-95
What happened
The Pung family owed about $2,242 in property taxes. Isabella County, Michigan, sold their home — assessed at $194,400 — for $76,008 at auction. Their representative argued they were owed the home's fair market value, not just the auction surplus.
What the court decided
The Supreme Court held that after a tax sale, just compensation is measured by the auction sale price (the surplus over the tax debt), not the home's hypothetical market value, at least when the sale is fairly conducted; the Excessive Fines Clause does not require more. It vacated and sent the case back.
In the court's words
“The baseline for measuring just compensation in the tax-sale context is therefore the sale price, not the property’s hypothetical fair market value”
Why it may matter to you
Read it with Tyler: you have a right to the surplus, but not to the full market value. That is why acting BEFORE a tax sale — paying, a payment plan, a deferral — protects far more of your equity.
Why it might not apply
Very recent (June 2026); lower courts are still applying it. The Court left open what makes a sale "fairly conducted", so a badly run sale may still be challenged.
Most useful when
- Your home was sold for taxes and you want its full market value back, not just the surplus
How to cite it
The full citation for the first time you mention it, a short form for later, and a sample sentence you can adapt.
Pung v. Isabella County, No. 25-95, slip op. (U.S. June 23, 2026)Short formPung, No. 25-95 (U.S. June 23, 2026)Draft — check it with free legal aid before you file or say it in court.
In Pung v. Isabella County, No. 25-95, slip op. (U.S. June 23, 2026), the court held that after a fairly conducted tax sale, the government owes the former owner the surplus from the sale price, not the property's fair market value. Here, [say in one sentence what happened in your case]
Ask Techy about this case
Techy explains the case in plain words, why it may matter to you, its limits, and how to prepare. It only uses this case record.
Related cases
- Homeowner wonBinding
Tyler v. Hennepin County
598 U.S. 631 · Decided 2023
Geraldine Tyler, 94 years old, owed about $15,000 in property taxes on her Minneapolis condo. The county seized it, sold it for $40,000, and kept all of it.
Read the case - Homeowner wonPersuasive
Hall v. Meisner
51 F.4th 185 · Decided 2022
Michigan homeowners lost their homes over tax debts much smaller than the homes' value; the county transferred the homes and the owners got nothing for their equity.
Read the case - Homeowner wonBinding
Jones v. Flowers
547 U.S. 220 · Decided 2006
Gary Jones moved out of his Arkansas house but kept paying the mortgage. When taxes went unpaid, the state mailed notice by certified mail; it came back unclaimed, and the state sold the house anyway.
Read the case