Major decisions for property rights, executive authority and privacy — and their implications for Michigan
July 23, 2026|Font size:75%
100%
125%
150%
The U.S. Supreme Court’s latest term produced several decisions that impact law and policy in Michigan and around the country. The Mackinac Center Legal Foundation has prepared the following review to help explain the nature of select cases, what the Court decided, how these decisions will affect Michigan, and what to look for in future policy developments. Together, these decisions will shape the legal and policy landscape for years to come.
Pung v. Isabella County (Home Equity Theft)
-
Summary of Facts: A tax assessor in Isabella County, Michigan retroactively denied primary residence tax exemptions on the Pung family’s home, leaving them with $2,241.93 in disputed property taxes. After a series of legal battles, the county foreclosed on the Pungs’ home. At the time of foreclosure, the county assessed the house’s market value at $195,000, but it sold the home for $76,000 at the tax foreclosure auction. The county returned the approximately $74,000 in equity to the Pungs, but the Pungs sued, arguing the county should pay the difference between the foreclosure price and their home’s fair market value. Consistent with other U.S. Supreme Court rulings, the trial court held that the U.S. Constitution’s Fifth Amendment Takings Clause entitled the Pungs to the surplus proceeds from the foreclosure sale. The court disagreed, however, that the county owed the Pungs the full fair market value of their property. Instead, the court held that the county only had a legal duty to return any excess proceeds from the tax foreclosure sale, regardless of whether that sale matched the fair market value of the Pung’s home. The Pung family appealed the decision, arguing that the county’s refusal to pay the difference between the fair market value and the tax debt violated the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause and the Eighth Amendment’s Excessive Fines Clause.
-
Supreme Court Decision: In a unanimous (9-0) decision, the Supreme Court rejected the Pungs’ constitutional arguments and held that the county is only obligated to return any excess equity from the tax foreclosure, regardless of whether that sale reflected the property’s true value. The court held that, generally, the surplus proceeds from a tax-foreclosure sale satisfy the Fifth Amendment’s just compensation requirement, provided the sale was conducted fairly. The court sent the case to the 6th Circuit for further review as to whether the sale was fair.
- Impact on Michigan: Michigan has a relatively aggressive tax-foreclosure system, making this case significant for homeowners across the state. Pung defines what compensation property owners are entitled to receive when property is seized for unpaid taxes. The Supreme Court held that the Constitution generally requires the government to return only the surplus from a fairly conducted tax-foreclosure sale, not the property’s assessed fair market value.
-
What to Watch Next: While the court rejected the Pung family’s argument that tax foreclosures should require municipalities to pay owners fair market value as compensation, the court did not address whether Isabella County’s sales process was fair. Lower courts can still rule in the Pung family’s favor if they judge Isabella County’s auction as unfair.
- MCLF Takeaways: Pung v. Isabella County shows how easily Michigan homeowners can lose substantial property value over relatively small tax disputes, highlighting the need for stronger property-rights protections and more transparent foreclosure procedures in the state.
Trump v. Slaughter (Firing of FTC Commissioner)
-
Summary of Facts: In January 2025, President Donald Trump fired two commissioners of the Federal Trade Commission. The FTC, like many other federal agencies, was designed with independent agency heads, which prevents the president from firing the leaders of the agency except for specific causes. One of the commissioners, Rebecca Slaughter, sued the president, alleging that her removal exceeded his authority and violated the FTC Act’s for-cause removal provisions, which specify that commissioners can only be removed by the president “for inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance of office.”
-
Supreme Court Decision: In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Trump, holding that the FTC’s for-cause removal provision conflicts with the separation of powers set forth in the Constitution. This overturned long-standing precedent from a New Deal-era case known as Humphrey’s Executor, which had limited the president’s authority to remove agency officials who weren’t aligned with the president’s priorities. In doing so, the court embraced the unitary executive theory, which holds that all administrative agencies are part of the executive branch, and that, as the head of the executive branch, the president has the authority to freely fire any agency head at will.
-
Impact on Michigan/What to Watch Next: While the court’s ruling focuses on the FTC, the decision could have far broader implications for other federal agencies with similar for-cause removal protections for their leaders. Agencies such as the National Labor Relations Board and the Merit Systems Protection Board will be subject to this ruling, and it is likely that Trump and future administrations will more freely fire agency heads to align staff with their policy priorities.
-
MCLF Takeaways: From a constitutional perspective, this case essentially eliminates the idea that an administrative agency can be shielded from presidential control. Concurring and dissenting opinions in this case raised the question of whether Congress would have created independent agencies if it had known that the president could freely fire their leaders, which may lead to future challenges to whether formerly independent agencies should even continue to exist.
Trump v. Cook (Firing of Federal Reserve Chair)
-
Summary of Facts: In August of 2025, President Trump attempted to fire Lisa Cook, one of the governors of the Federal Reserve System, after learning that she may have committed mortgage fraud before being appointed to the Board of Governors. Cook sued, arguing that her removal violated a statute requiring Federal Reserve governors be removed “for cause,” and that the president had failed to provide her with due process, as required by statute and the Constitution, before firing her. The District Court blocked her removal, and the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case to decide whether Ms. Cook could remain in her position while she challenged the legality of her firing.
-
Supreme Court Decision: In a 5-4 ruling, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Cook, allowing her to remain in her position while she fights the mortgage fraud allegations at the heart of her firing. The court found, based on the Federal Reserve’s unique historical character, that its Board can be shielded from the otherwise broad presidential authority described in Slaughter.
-
Impact on Michigan: The Federal Reserve is an independent institution that helps shape policy on inflation, interest rates, mortgages, loans, and the broader economy impacting American citizens and businesses. By creating a historical exception for the Federal Reserve, the court protected Board leadership from presidential removal. This decision will insulate the leaders of the Federal Reserve from political pressures, while also making it more difficult for them to be held politically accountable for the decisions they make.
-
What to Watch Next: The Supreme Court’s ruling grants Ms. Cook the opportunity to respond to the allegations that prompted her firing. She will proceed to contest those charges and defend her position on the Board of Governors in the lower courts.
-
MCLF Takeaways: In contrast to the Supreme Court’s decision in Trump v. Slaughter, the Court in Cook limits the president’s power to remove heads of independent agencies, at least with regard to the Federal Reserve. The court reasoned that to preserve the political independence of the Federal Reserve and the unique historical character of the agency, the “for cause” removal requirement grants governors certain procedural rights. For now, the Federal Reserve appears to be the only agency insulated from the president’s ability to fire agency leaders, though the court’s reliance on historical tradition in this case may allow other independent agency heads to receive similar protections in the future if they can show a similarly unique historical tradition of independence from the executive branch.
Chatrie v. United States (4th Amendment Searches)
-
Summary of Facts: In 2019, police in Midlothian, Virginia used a warrant to obtain location history data from Google for cell phones located within a 150-meter radius of a credit union that had been robbed. The warrant described a detailed step-by-step process police would follow after obtaining the data to narrow down suspects. Police received this mass data and eventually focused on three individuals, including Okello Chatrie. A federal grand jury later charged Chatrie with robbery and related firearms offenses.
Chatrie challenged the constitutionality of the information police had obtained from Google, arguing that using broad location data was an unreasonable search under the Fourth Amendment, which would invalidate the warrant that led to his arrest. The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case to determine whether collecting group location history data constituted a search under the Fourth Amendment.
-
Supreme Court Decision: The Supreme Court issued a 6-3 ruling in favor of Chatrie, holding that the police did conduct a Fourth Amendment search by requesting bulk and anonymized location history data from Google. The court specifically held that individuals have a reasonable expectation of privacy in their cell-phone location information. However, the court did not decide whether the specific search conducted in this case was unconstitutional, instead sending the case back to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit to determine whether the search was unreasonable.
-
Impact on Michigan: This case deals with whether the government can obtain large amounts of cellphone location data showing where thousands of people were at a given time, including innocent people never suspected of a crime. In holding that individuals have an expectation of privacy in their cell phone location data, the court strengthened privacy protections while still allowing police to use that data when justified by probable cause.
-
What to Watch Next: The case returns to the 4th Circuit, where that court will decide whether the search police conducted was unreasonable and therefore violated the Fourth Amendment.
-
MC Takeaways: By holding that the police’s actions constituted a Fourth Amendment search, this case could significantly shape how much privacy Americans have in their daily movements and how broadly law enforcement can use powerful digital surveillance tools in investigations. A recognized expectation of privacy in cell phone location data will require law enforcement to meet higher standards before obtaining that data, strengthening privacy protections for citizens in Michigan and across the country.
Permission to reprint this blog post in whole or in part is hereby granted, provided that the author (or authors) and the Mackinac Center for Public Policy are properly cited.
Stay Engaged
Get insightful commentary and the most reliable research on Michigan issues sent straight to your inbox.
The Mackinac Center for Public Policy is a nonprofit research and educational institute that advances the principles of free markets and limited government. Through our research and education programs, we challenge government overreach and advocate for a free-market approach to public policy that frees people to realize their potential and dreams.
Please consider contributing to our work to advance a freer and more prosperous state.
