Tax sale proceeds, not fair market value, are the baseline for just compensation under the Fifth Amendment.

1) The constitutional question is whether, after a tax foreclosure sale, the government must compensate the former owner based on the property's hypothetical fair market value or only on the proceeds actually received at auction. 2) The Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause provides: 'nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.' The text does not define 'just compensation' or require any particular valuation method. 3) Ratification-era understanding and early practice confirm that tax sales were a well-established method of collecting unpaid taxes, and the government's obligation was to return any surplus above the tax debt. State statutes from the founding era and early federal tax forfeiture laws consistently provided for surplus return, not fair-market-value guarantees. The historical record is devoid of any authority requiring compensation for a hypothetical higher value. 4) Holding: The Constitution does not require the government to pay the difference between the tax sale price and the property's fair market value, as long as the sale is conducted fairly (with notice, public auction, and a redemption period). The measure of just compensation in a tax sale is the sale price actually obtained, minus the tax debt and any valid costs. The Eighth Amendment's Excessive Fines Clause does not demand a different result because tax foreclosure is a non-punitive debt-collection mechanism. 5) Downstream: This holding affirms the majority in Pung v. Isabella County. States remain free to provide greater protection under their own constitutions, but the federal Constitution requires no more than the return of surplus proceeds. The government must still follow procedural safeguards to ensure the sale is fair; if the sale is tainted by fraud or collusion, the baseline may be different.