Co-authored by Amanda Karras, Executive Director/General Counsel, IMLA
In their 2025-2026 term, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) issued decisions that directly impact local governments on issues including local government tax foreclosure and the amount of equity that is due back to a homeowner after a tax sale; election law and redistricting issues; law enforcement issues, including qualified immunity and geofence warrants; birthright citizenship; and the Second Amendment. Consistent with our legal advocacy efforts and through our partnership with the Local Government Legal Center (“LGLC”), the National League of Cities (NLC) participated in amicus briefs presenting sound and persuasive legal arguments to the court on principles and issues important to good municipal government.
This blog breaks down the most significant SCOTUS rulings and their implications for local governments from this past term. Understanding these decisions is essential for local officials to navigate the changing legal landscape and effectively serve their communities.
Pung v. Isabella
The issues in this case were 1) whether taking/selling a home to satisfy government debt and keeping surplus violates the Takings Clause when the sale is from an “artificially depressed auction price”; and 2) whether taking of real estate worth more than debt and sold for fraction of fair market value is excessive fine under the Eighth Amendment.
The case was brought by the estate of Timothy Pung, a homeowner in Isabella County, Mich., who had long received a Principal Residence Exemption from property taxes on his residence. After his death, the property’s continuing entitlement to the exemption became the subject of dispute. Ultimately, a delinquency of $2,242 was assessed against the property, which the estate refused to pay. The County initiated foreclosure proceedings, and the home was subsequently sold at public auction for $76,008. The County then returned the balance — slightly less than $74,000 — to the estate. Given that the County had assessed the home for property tax purposes at $194,000 and the residence was resold some 18 months later by the auction purchaser for $195,000, the estate sought to recover a much higher amount from the County, arguing that fair market value was the proper baseline under the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause “just compensation” requirement.
The Supreme Court ruled that the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause does not require the government to use fair market value as a baseline when it sells a foreclosed property at a tax auction and returns only the surplus proceeds above the outstanding tax debt. The Court also rejected the taxpayer’s claim that the County’s forfeiture process constituted an excessive fine in violation of the Eighth Amendment.
This decision is a win for local governments as it preserves the basic architecture of tax foreclosure law as it has operated in jurisdictions across the country for generations. Local governments retain the ability to satisfy unpaid tax debts through public auction without exposure to liability for the gap between sale price and fair market value, provided the auction itself is procedurally sound. Property tax revenue is of overwhelming importance to local government budgets. Had the Court ruled against the County in this case, it would have undermined the ability of local governments to preserve their property tax structures and collect property tax debts nationwide.
NLC filed a brief (PDF) in this case along with the founding partners of the LGLC, the National Association of Counties (NACo) and the International Municipal Lawyers Association (IMLA), along with associate members the International City/County Management Association (ICMA) and Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA).
Case v. Montana
The issue in this case was whether a criminal probable cause standard is required for community caretaker warrantless entry, or if an officer’s objectively reasonable belief that an emergency is occurring sufficient?
In this case, law enforcement entered the home of a suicidal individual without a warrant after his girlfriend called them to report his suicide threat and based on other observations at the home that indicated he might be suicidal. Mr. Case was shot by law enforcement in the home after he pulled back a curtain and appeared to reach for a nearby handgun. He sought to suppress the evidence of the gun in his criminal trial based on the warrantless entry into the home. (He was charged with the crime of causing apprehension of serious bodily harm to a police officer).
The Supreme Court held that law enforcement officers do not need criminal probable cause to enter a home without a warrant when they have an objectively reasonable basis to believe an occupant is seriously injured or imminently threatened with such injury.
This decision is a win for local government as it allows law enforcement to enter a home to help members of the community in circumstances that do not involve criminal activity, such as where an individual may be suicidal or where a neighbor calls in a wellness check. The standard adopted by the Court will reduce liability for police and local governments in these circumstances.
NLC filed a brief (PDF) in this case with the founding partners of the LGLC, NACo and IMLA, along with associate member ICMA.
First Choice Women’s Resource Centers, Inc. v. Davenport
The issue in this case was whether constitutionally-based challenges to state or local administrative subpoenas can be heard in federal court before state proceedings have concluded.
At issue was an administrative subpoena issued by the New Jersey Attorney General to First Choice Women’s Resource Centers, inc. based on concerns that First Choice was misrepresenting its services in its marketing materials. The subpoena was based on potential violations of a New Jersey law that made it unlawful to mislead donors and that data sought in the subpoena included names and addresses of First Choice’s donors. The subpoena was not “self-executing,” meaning that it had no force or effect until enforced by order of the New Jersey Superior Court, giving First Choice the opportunity to decline compliance, challenge the scope of the subpoena, etc. Instead, First Choice preemptively brought an action in federal court to enjoin the subpoena under Section 1983, arguing that the mere fact of the subpoena inhibited donors from contributing for fear that their identities would be made public, undermining First Choice’s right of free association protected by the First Amendment.
The Supreme Court held that where a state Attorney General’s administrative subpoena sought an organization’s donor information, the subpoena recipient could preemptively challenge it in federal court on First Amendment right of association grounds, even though the subpoena had yet to be held enforceable in state court. The Court found First Choice had standing to sue in federal court as it had suffered a cognizable injury as there is a “vital relationship between privacy in one’s associations and the freedom to associate.”
Local governments utilize administrative subpoenas to investigate potential wrongdoing in their communities as they seek to safeguard the health and welfare of their constituents. This decision is a loss for local government as it clarifies that federalism concerns will not protect state or local administrative subpoenas from preemptive challenge in federal court when First Amendment associational rights are implicated. The decision’s reach may be limited based on the focus of the injury associated with the state seeking donor information.
NLC filed a brief (PDF)in this case with the founding partners of the LGLC, NACo and IMLA.
Olivier v. City of Brandon
The issues in this case were: 1) whether Heck v. Humphrey bars a Section 1983 challenge to a local ordinance where the plaintiff seeks prospective injunctive relief instead of damages; and 2) whether Heck bars a Section 1983 suit where the individual was never incarcerated / never had a habeas opportunity, and never obtained a reversal, expungement or pardon.
This case involved a street preacher who had been convicted of violating the City’s ordinance restricting protests and loud microphones near the public amphitheater (the restriction applied in a content-neutral manner). His conviction was a misdemeanor and he never served any jail time. Olivier wanted to return to the venue to continue to preach after his conviction, but without the threat of criminal punishment, so he brought a Section 1983 action seeking only forward-looking relief, asking the court to declare the ordinance unconstitutional and prevent its enforcement against him.
The Supreme Court held that Heck v. Humphrey does not bar a Section 1983 suit seeking purely prospective relief, assuming a credible threat of prosecution.
This decision is a technical loss for local government, but the Court cabined its holding in two important ways. First, it did not answer the second question about the application of the Heck bar in circumstances where the individual never had access to habeas because it found the first question fully disposed of the case. That question was of greater concern to local governments given the potential onslaught of Section 1983 litigation — a decision allowing such suits to proceed would have wrought. The Court also specifically noted that it was not saying that “every person can challenge his statute of conviction through a Section 1983 suit for wholly prospective relief” and instead, reserved the question of “whether a person may bring such a suit while he is in custody for violating the statute challenged.”
NLC filed a brief (PDF) in this case with the founding partners of the LGLC, NACo and IMLA, along with associate member ICMA.
Chatrie v. United States
The issue in this case was whether geofence warrants violate the Fourth Amendment prohibition against unreasonable search.
In this case, police used a geofence warrant to find a suspect who committed a bank robbery. The geofence warrant was served on Google; there was a three-step process between law enforcement and Google to review location history of users within the geofence that began with fully anonymized data but ultimately produced individual names, leading to the suspect in this case. The questions centered on whether law enforcement’s review of location data for a short period of time constituted a search, and whether law enforcement review of data voluntarily provided to Google by users is a search — and finally, whether the geofence warrant itself met the Fourth Amendment’s requirements.
The Supreme Court held that law enforcement conducts a search under the Fourth Amendment when it reviews location data a user voluntarily provides to their cell phone company. The Court did not decide whether the geofence warrant was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment and instead remanded to the lower court to determine that question in the first instance.
This decision is a technical loss for local government as the Court rejected the government’s arguments that law enforcement’s review of the data was not a search because: A) it only reviewed a short time-period of the location data (2 hours); and/or B) the location data is voluntarily shared with the cellphone providers (i.e., the third-party doctrine). But, because the Court did not decide whether the geofence warrant itself was reasonable, law enforcement may still be able to utilize these warrants if they meet the Fourth Amendment’s requirements. Lower courts will decide that question.
NLC filed a brief (PDF) in this case with the founding partners of the LGLC, NACo and IMLA, along with associate member ICMA.
Monsanto v. Durnell
The issue in this case was whether a duty to add warning to label under state law is preempted by federal agency determination that no warning is required. Local governments have a significant interest in ensuring this Court’s preemption jurisprudence considers the careful balance between federal and state/local power inherent in our constitutional structure.
The Supreme Court held that the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) expressly preempts state labeling requirements that are “in addition to” or “different from” federal labeling requirements.
This decision is a loss for local government. While the overall decision was a technical loss, because the Court did not reach the question of implied preemption the decision will have less of an impact on other preemption issues in the future.
NLC filed a brief (PDF) in this case with the founding partners of the LGLC, NACo and IMLA.
The Court also issued two additional decisions of interest to local governments in which NLC did not file briefs — Louisiana v. Callais and Trump v. Barbara.
- In Louisiana v. Callais, the Supreme Court struck down Louisiana’s redistricting maps by significantly modifying the test courts must use to determine if a claim under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act (VRA) for race-based vote dilution may proceed. To prove whether a claim can proceed, a litigant must assert that a minority group has less opportunity than other voters to elect representatives of their choice. The result of the opinion is a narrowing of the VRA, which will remove checks on partisan-driven redistricting by requiring proof of intentional discrimination rather than just discriminatory results. This decision goes beyond congressional districts and could impact state legislature districts and councilmanic districts, thus directly impacting cities, towns and villages redistricting decisions. Learn more.
- In Trump v. Barbara, the Supreme Court struck down President Trump’s Executive Order purporting to end birthright citizenship. In doing so, the majority relied on the plain text of the Fourteenth Amendment’s Citizenship Clause, the unbroken history of English common law through Reconstruction that recognized birthright citizenship, and existing Supreme Court precedent. While the Executive Order was always couched as prospective, today’s result avoids potentially stripping approximately 250,000 children per year of citizenship. This would have resulted in likely increased burdens for local governments that provide critical services to residents in their communities, as these children would no longer be eligible for federal benefits like TANF and WIC. It would have also created some uncertainty for local governments as to how vital records should be administered for children born to parents lacking legal status going forward. The Court’s decision maintains the status quo for both individuals and local governments. Read the opinion (PDF).
Upcoming Webinar
NLC and the LGLC will host a webinar with legal experts reviewing the important decisions of the SCOTUS term impacting local governments, July 27 at 2 PM ET.
About the Author
Supreme Court Review for Local Governments: 2025-2026
Your Community’s Voice Matters: How to Submit Comments on OMB’s Proposed Grant Changes
- Dante Moreno
How Local Autonomy Can Build Economic Resilience
- Jordyn Taylor
From the Event: What the OMB Proposed Rule Means for Federal Grants
New OMB Rules for Grantees Could Override Local Authority
- Dante Moreno
- Michael Wallace
