Replication Data for: Property Rights for the Poor

This essay explores the significant legal, economic, and social implications of the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Tyler v. Hennepin County (2023). Tyler marks a pivotal moment in property law. The ruling addressed the contentious practice of "home equity expropriation," whereby local governments retained surplus proceeds from tax foreclosure sales, disproportionately harming homeowners from vulnerable socio-economic groups. By invalidating such practices under the Takings Clause, the Court limited governments to recouping only the amounts actually owed and protected homeowners’ property rights in their equity. Empirically examining the values of properties at risk of home equity expropriation, the study shows that the decision generated a substantial increase in home values, highlighting the broader economic benefits of protecting property rights for marginalized groups. The article further examines the normative implications of the ruling, including its challenges to conventional doctrines on taxation, excessive fines, and civil forfeiture. By linking the Takings Clause with the Excessive Fines Clause, the decision potentially sets a precedent for safeguarding individuals against punitive and disproportionate government actions. The Court's endorsement of a robust and resilient concept of property, rooted in historical and doctrinal coherence, establishes limits on a state’s ability to redefine property rights opportunistically. This landmark case underscores property law's potential to shield vulnerable homeowners from state overreach while fostering stability across economically disadvantaged communities. The findings and analyses presented advocate for a reimagined view of property as a protector of societal equity and individual security.