Court rules on tax sales, retaliatory prosecution
on Apr 26, 2006 at 10:30 am
The Supreme Court ruled on Wednesday that when a mailed notice of a tax sale is returned unclaimed, a state must take added steps to attempt to make sure the property owner knows the property is at risk before it may be sold. The Court said, however, that only “reasonable” additional steps need be taken, and then only when it is “practicable” to do so.
Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., wrote for the majority in a 5-3 ruling, in Jones v. Flowers (04-1477). New Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr., took no part. The case involved a Little Rock, Ark., man who lost his house in a tax forfeiture sale because he did not receive notice until too late to redeem the property.
Roberts’ opinion drew the support of the Court’s more liberal members, Justices Stephen G. Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, David H. Souter and John Paul Stevens. Justice Clarence Thomas dissented, joined by Justices Anthony M. Kennedy and Antonin Scalia.
In the only other decision on an argued case Wednesdary, the Court ruled that an individual claiming to have been prosecuted in retaliation for exercising his rights must show that the officers did not have probable cause for their action. The decision was 5-2, with Roberts and Alito not participating. The ruling came in Hartman v. Moore (04-1495). Justice Souter wrote for the majority.
Resolving a conflict in lower courts, the Court sided with those that have required a showing that there was no probable cause before a law enforcement officer can be held liable for engaging in retaliatory prosecution. The case involved five U.S. postal inspectors who faced trial oin charges that they pursued criminal charges against a postal equipment maker and his company to retaliate for his lobbying to get Postal Service contracts.
The majority said that a demonstration that there was no probable cause for the officers’ actions would tend to reinforce the claim of retaliation, and to show that, had it not been for the attempt to punish the individual, the prosecution would not have been instigated. The ruling sided with the view of the Justice Department.
Souter’s majority opinion was joined by Justices Kennedy, Scalia, Stevens and Thomas. Justice Ginsburg dissented, joined by Justice Breyer.
