Does the government violate the Takings Clause's 'categorical duty' to pay just compensation for property taken in excess of taxes by enacting a procedure that leaves most former owners without their homes and without compensation?

Macomb County foreclosed and auctioned Faytima Howard’s home to collect a property tax debt, receiving substantially more than she owed. The Takings Clause requires the government to pay for the excess property taken. Tyler v. Hennepin Cnty. , 598 U.S. 631, 639 (2023). But the County kept all the proceeds because Howard did not comply with Michigan’s unusual claims process that very few owners successfully navigate. See Mich. Comp. Laws § 211.78t. While Knick v. Township of Scott , 588 U.S. 180, 189 (2019), expressly permits takings claimants to pursue their cases in federal court without exhausting state procedures, the Sixth Circuit construed Nelson v. City of New York , 352 U.S. 103, 110 (1956), to mean that no taking occurred because Howard erred in complying with the state’s administrative claims process. 1. Does the government violate the Takings Clause’s “categorical duty” to pay just compensation for property taken in excess of the taxes, fees, and penalties, per Tyler , by enacting a procedure that leaves most former owners without their homes and without compensation? 2. To the extent that Nelson v. City of New York requires tax debtors to exhaust state remedies prior to bringing a constitutional takings challenge in federal court, should Nelson be overruled? These questions also are presented in Beeman v. Muskegon County Treasurer , No. 24-858; Koetter v. Manistee County Treasurer , No. 24-1095; and McGee v. Alger County Treasurer , No. 25-203.