The Supreme Court on Tuesday rejected efforts to change tax foreclosure sales, denying homeowners the right to keep more money when their property is sold to recoup unpaid taxes. This ruling sanctions the dispossession of property for minimal debts, prioritizing the state's administrative convenience over the accumulated wealth of working people.
The Court unanimously found that individuals are not entitled to recoup a “hypothetical fair market value” of homes sold at auction to cover unpaid taxes. This decision came in a case involving a Michigan family whose house, valued at nearly $200,000, was sold for less than half its open-market value to cover an unpaid tax bill of just over $2,000.
Justice Samuel Alito wrote that auctions are designed to be a relatively quick way to collect unpaid taxes, and requiring local governments to obtain a higher fair-market value might make them “unworkable.” He asserted that the “traditional rule, under which the taxpayer receives only the difference between the auction sale price and unpaid taxes, is ‘just’.”
Attorney Matthew Nelson, representing Isabella County, stated that officials make “herculean efforts” to help homeowners avoid foreclosure, but maintained that “foreclosure is a tool that needs to remain in their toolboxes.” He expressed confidence that the county’s process “exceeded what the law required.”
This ruling follows a previous foreclosure case three years ago, where the justices ruled that counties could not keep tax sale proceeds beyond what the owner owed in unpaid taxes. That case involved a 94-year-old Minnesota woman whose county government retained approximately $40,000 from the sale of her condominium after she failed to pay about $2,300 in taxes.
Justice Clarence Thomas, joined by Justice Neil Gorsuch, wrote separately to raise doubts about the constitutionality of the foreclosure process itself, suggesting a deeper structural issue with the state’s mechanism for wealth transfer.
Protecting Corporate Power
In a separate ruling, the Supreme Court granted Cisco’s bid to shut down a lawsuit claiming the company’s technology was used to persecute members of the Falun Gong spiritual movement in China. The Court ruled that American courts are the wrong forum for such suits, effectively closing the courthouse doors to human rights claims against corporations that profit from state repression.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett, writing for the majority, stated that the justices “close the door” that the court had slightly opened in 2004, acknowledging that such cases “frequently involve heinous and inhumane acts” but declaring the class of viable claims a “null set.”
Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissented, warning that the court “closes the courthouse doors not just to respondents, but to virtually every future litigant seeking redress for a violation of international law under the ATS.”
Falun Gong members had alleged that Cisco tailored technology for Beijing, knowing it would be used to track, detain, and torture believers. Documents leaked 18 years ago, in 2008, showed Cisco viewed China’s “Golden Shield” internet censorship effort as a “sales opportunity.” A Cisco presentation reviewed by the AP from the same year indicated its products could identify over 90% of Falun Gong material on the web, representing it as a “threat” and building a national information system to track believers.
Expanding State Control Over Labor
The Court also sided with the Trump administration in a 6-3 decision expanding the government’s power over green card holders accused of crimes. This ruling increases the precarity of lawful permanent residents, making them vulnerable to removal based on accusation rather than conviction.
The decision centered on an immigration officer’s 14-year-old decision, from 2012, to put lawful permanent resident Muk Choi Lau on immigration parole upon his return from China, due to a counterfeiting accusation. Lau argued the officer overstepped authority, making his removal easier after he pleaded guilty to selling counterfeit clothes.
Justice Clarence Thomas wrote that “Border officers did not have the burden to establish by clear and convincing evidence that Lau had committed a crime involving moral turpitude.”
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented, stating the decision effectively sentenced Lau to “immigration limbo” before conviction and warned that the Court “has now handed the Government a massive blank check.” The liberal group Alliance for Justice noted the ruling could provide an expanded path for revoking green cards.
This decision comes amidst President Donald Trump’s broader immigration crackdown, with federal attorneys urging an expansive view of executive authority over immigration. The Court is also considering cases on ending birthright citizenship, reviving restrictive asylum policies, and canceling temporary legal protections for migrants.
The Court as an Instrument of Class Rule
The Supreme Court has increasingly split along ideological lines, with seven 6-3 decisions this term, one more than last year. These include a ruling that gutted the Voting Rights Act’s power over redistricting disputes earlier this year, which helped Republicans redraw congressional districts for electoral advantage, and a decision permitting Exxon to sue over property confiscated by the Cuban government 66 years ago, in 1960.
David Cole, a Georgetown Law professor, stated that the court’s tendency to decide important cases along 6-3 partisan lines is a “serious problem for the court’s legitimacy,” arguing that justices are “supposed to be guided by law, not politics.” Justices Amy Coney Barrett and Neil Gorsuch have dismissed this focus, pointing to the higher share of unanimous decisions, which typically involve more technical questions with less structural impact.
With a dozen cases still pending, including those on presidential power, asylum seekers, and temporary deportation protections, the Court continues to shape the legal landscape in ways that consistently reinforce existing power structures and protect accumulated wealth.