Whether property owners have a direct cause of action under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment when state remedies are inadequate or unavailable

No question identified. : 3. Petitioners respectfully request an extension of time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari. 4. In Tyler v. Hennepin County, Minnesota, 598 U.S. 631 (2023), this Court held that retaining surplus proceeds from a tax foreclosure sale constitutes a taking under the Fifth Amendment, requiring just compensation. 5. Similarly, in Rafaeli, LLC v. Oakland County, 952 N.W.2d 434 (Mich. 2020), the Michigan Supreme Court recognized such retention as a taking under the Michigan Constitution. 6. The payment of just compensation was required immediately and automatically by the United States Constitution upon the taking “[b]ecause of ‘the self-executing character’ of the Takings Clause ‘with respect to compensation.” Knick v. Twp. of Scott, 588 U.S. 180, 192 (2019) (quoting First English Evangelical Lutheran Church of Glendale v. Cnty. of Los Angeles, 482 U.S. 304, 315 (1987)). 7. The State of Michigan and its treasurer failed that obligation. 8. In Michigan, the State, rather than county officials, conducted the unconstitutional foreclosure process in eight of Michigan’s 83 counties, and is protected from traditional federal constitutional claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 per Will v. Michigan Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58 (1989). 9. The Michigan Supreme Court failed to recognize the federal law mandates that it must provide the constitutional remedy. See DLX, Inc. v. Kentucky, 381 F.3d 511, 528 (6th Cir. 2004) (holding that states must provide a judicial remedy for federal Takings claims “notwithstanding sovereign immunity”). 10. The Michigan Supreme Court’s decision in this case denied Petitioners acomplete remedy under state law, as the General Property Tax Act, M.C.L. § 211.78t, imposes procedural barriers and limits recovery, leaving Petitioners with an inadequate remedy for the State Treasurer’s unconstitutional retention of surplus proceeds. 11. The Michigan Supreme Court’s over-reliance on M.C.L. § 211.78t’s limited statutory process and insufficient remedy contravenes DLX’s mandate, creating a split with the Sixth Circuit’s view that state courts must remedy federal Takings violations. 12. This case presents the question left unresolved in Devillier v. Texas, 601 U.S. 285 (2024): whether property owners have a direct cause of action under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment when state remedies are inadequate or unavailable. 13. Unlike Devillier, where Texas provided a robust and full state-law remedy, Michigan’s framework inadequately ensures and fails to provide full just compensation for Petitioners, particularly against the state as a sovereign entity. 14. This gap creates a significant constitutional issue, as Petitioners are barred from federal relief under § 1983 and face an incomplete state remedy, potentially leaving them without any avenue to vindicate their Fifth Amendment rights. 15. Petitioners assert that review is warranted to clarify whether the Takings Clause is self-executing in such circumstances, resolving a critical question for property owners nationwide. 16. Asixty (60) day extension would allow Petitioners sufficient time to fully prepare the needed petition for filing. Additionally, undersigned counsel has a number of other pending matters with proximate due dates that will interfere with counsel’s ability to file the petition on or before the current due date. Wherefore, Petitioners respectfully request that an order be entered extending the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari to and including Monday, October 20, 2025. July 30, 2025 Respectfully submitted, Philip L. Ellison OUTSIDE LEGAL COUNSEL PLC 530 West Saginaw St. PO Box 107 Hemlock, MI 48626 (989) 642-0055 pellison@olcple.com Counsel for Petitioners EXHIBIT A Order Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan March 20, 2025 Elizabeth T. Clement, Chief Justice 168233 & ad 5) Brian K. Zahra Richard H. Bernstein Megan K. Cavanagh LYNETTE HATHON and AMY JO DENKINS, Elizabeth M. Welch Individually a