federal-courts
Limitations of State law
<p>Given the seemingly faulty law reported in WSJ, this gives rise to the question:  When states define &amp; enforce ill-conceived law, is Federal law (Constitutionality) the only limit to state law?</p>
<p><a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-supreme-court-takes-up-home-equity-theft-tyler-fair-debt-property-private-investors-pacific-legal-fbec50cf?mod=hp_opin_pos_2#cxrecs_s" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-supreme-court-takes-up-home-equity-theft-tyler-fair-debt-property-private-investors-pacific-legal-fbec50cf?mod=hp_opin_pos_2#cxrecs_s</a></p>
<p>Geraldine Tyler never thought she’d end up in front of the U.S. Supreme Court—especially at 94. But she also never imagined the government would seize her Minneapolis home and sell it. Ms. Tyler is a victim of what’s often called home-equity theft, but this form of robbery isn’t criminal; in fact, it’s legal in a dozen states. The Supreme Court, which hears oral arguments Wednesday in Tyler v. Hennepin County, has the opportunity to end these predatory tax foreclosures once and for all.</p>
<p>Ms. Tyler’s trouble began when she moved into a senior residence in 2010 and fell behind on her property taxes. She ended up owing Hennepin County roughly $2,300. After tacking on penalties, interest and related costs, her debt ballooned to $15,000. To collect what it was owed, Hennepin County seized and later sold the one-bedroom condo for $40,000. You might think the county would settle the $15,000 debt and return the $25,000 balance to Ms. Tyler. But the county took all $40,000 and left her with nothing to show from her only significant asset.</p>
<p>Ms. Tyler fought back, and the justices will soon decide whether the government violated the Constitution by confiscating the total value of her former home.</p>
<p>Most states treat property-tax collection like other debts, only taking as much as the government is owed. But Minnesota is one of 12 states, plus the District of Columbia, that regularly take a windfall when collecting delinquent property taxes. Several more states that typically protect property-tax debtors have created special loopholes that allow the government to take a windfall so long as it uses the property for public purposes.</p>

<p>State legislation can be invalid due to inconsistency with <em>either</em> the U.S. Constitution <em>or</em> the state's constitution.</p>
<p>State legislation can also be inoperative due to <a href="https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_preemption" rel="nofollow noreferrer">pre-emption</a> by conflicting and valid federal law.</p>

<p>All states have written constitutions which limit what laws that state can pass.  States are also limited by what rights are <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/incorporation_doctrine" rel="nofollow noreferrer">incorporated</a> by the Fourteenth Amendment to the US Constitution.  While state law cannot violate the US Constitution, states are free to write constitutions that grant more or more expansive rights to their citizens.  A good case example of this is <em><a href="https://www.oyez.org/cases/1979/79-289" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Pruneyard Shopping Center v Robins</a></em>.  Briefly, the case was whether the shopping center could expel students who were protesting a UN resolution on its property, which was generally open to the public. The Supreme Court of the US found that while the US Constitution did not protect the speech of the students, the California Constitution was more expansive in its protection of speech and as a result did protect the conduct of the students against the shopping center.</p>
<p>The trick here is that usually SCOTUS will defer to the findings of the state supreme court (using &quot;supreme court&quot; to mean whichever court is the highest court in the state) on the interpretation of the state's constitution, on the theory that they are the experts on their state constitution's meaning and historical precedent.  So if a state supreme court has ruled that a law is non-violative of the state constitution, SCOTUS is unlikely to overrule that.</p>
