The Supreme Court will hear a case Wednesday concerning a 94-year-old Minnesota woman whose home was seized by the state for unpaid taxes and never saw the excess proceeds from the home's eventual sale.

The case , Tyler v. Hennepin County, surrounds allegations that the local government engaged in a practice of "home equity theft," according to her legal counsel, which is the concept of the government taking an owner's property to cover outstanding debt without returning the sale amount beyond what is owed.

SUPREME COURT TO HEAR MINNESOTA HOME EQUITY QUESTION

“When the government takes more than it is owed in taxes, that’s home equity theft,” Pacific Legal Foundation senior attorney Christina Martin, who will be arguing the case on behalf of Tyler, said in a statement.

Geraldine Tyler moved from her one-bedroom Minneapolis condo into an apartment in a senior community in 2010. By 2015, she had accrued a $2,300 tax debt on that condo, which compounded to $15,000 after fees, interest, and penalties, resulting in Hennepin County seizing her property, according to PLF.

Rather than giving back surplus profits from the $40,000 sale, the county kept the additional $25,000 on top of her debt despite her home once being valued at $93,000.

County auditor Dan Rogan previously said Tyler's forfeiture is not a "source of profit." He stated that Minnesota law gives owners three years to resolve a nonpayment and that "if owners do not ultimately pay their taxes, the property is forfeited to the state, and all liens and encumbrances are removed."

David Deerson, a PLF attorney who has also worked on the case, said while Hennepin County contends that disputes such as Tyler's are rare, the problem is actually "widespread," likening it to a "get rich quick" scheme for the government.

The core issue in the dispute is whether the government violates the Fifth Amendment's takings clause when it takes property worth more than the debt owed by the owner and whether that amounts to an excessive fine.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit affirmed a lower court's dismissal of Tyler's case in 2021, rejecting her claim that taking surplus equity was an “unconstitutional excessive fine and a violation of substantive due process.”

The Biden administration filed a brief in support of neither party in the case but contended the federal government had "substantial interest" in the case, according to a brief from Justice Department Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar.

Prelogar wrote that "the retention of sale proceeds allegedly in excess of petitioner’s tax debt does not constitute a 'fine' subject to the Excessive Fines Clause." But she added that, unlike the Minnesota statutory program at issue, "federal law does not authorize the taking of absolute title to real property ... without a process for obtaining proceeds from a subsequent sale."

Tyler has found support from other outside groups like the American Civil Liberties Union and the Cato Institute, which argue in their briefs that lower-income and elderly citizens are more often at a heightened risk of forfeiting their homes.

A decision in the case is expected by the end of the court's present term in late June.