Pаrt 4: Briefing а cаse backgrоund Belоw I have cоpied the background reading for a Supreme Court case. Your task is basically to write the first part of a case brief which is the background of the case, identifying the specific case + controversy. As with your case brief assignment, you must limit your response to five or fewer standard length sentences. ~ ~ ~ Pung v. Isabella County (2026) Facts: Like other governments, Isabella County, Michigan, collects unpaid property taxes by foreclosing on the property and selling it at a public auction. Timothy Pung’s estate owned a home in Isabella County that was assessed at approximately $194,000. Michael Pung, the estate’s personal representative, disputed certain taxes imposed after the local assessor denied the property a principal-residence exemption. Although the Pungs successfully challenged some earlier assessments, the estate was eventually found to owe $2,242. When the estate refused to pay, the county obtained a foreclosure judgment. In 2020, Isabella County sold the property at a public auction for $76,000. The purchaser resold it about eighteen months later for $195,000. The county initially kept the entire auction price, including the amount exceeding the tax debt. During the litigation, however, Michigan changed its procedures following a Supreme Court decision (Tyler v. Hennepin County) recognizing that former owners possess a property right in surplus proceeds. Pung ultimately received $73,758—the auction price minus the taxes owed. Pung nevertheless argued that this payment was inadequate. He claimed that the county had taken property worth nearly $200,000 and therefore owed the estate the property’s fair market value, minus the tax debt, rather than merely the surplus produced by a distressed auction. He also alleged that the loss of so much of the home’s value constituted an excessive fine under the Eighth Amendment. A federal district court ruled that Pung was entitled to the surplus auction proceeds but not the property’s alleged fair market value. It also rejected his excessive-fines claim. The Sixth Circuit affirmed, and Pung requested review by the U.S. Supreme Court. Arguments: For the petitioner, Michael Pung: The Fifth Amendment ordinarily requires the government to compensate an owner according to the fair market value of property it takes. Compensation should reflect the owner’s loss, not the amount produced by a government-controlled forced sale. Under Tyler v. Hennepin County (2023), a government may collect the taxes it is owed, but it may not take the homeowner’s remaining equity. Returning only the surplus auction proceeds did not compensate the estate for all the equity it lost. Selling a home worth nearly $200,000 to collect approximately $2,200, through procedures that produced only $76,000, sacrificed far more property than was necessary. The loss was also a grossly disproportionate punishment for failing to pay a small and disputed tax debt and therefore violated the Eighth Amendment’s Excessive Fines Clause. For the respondent, Isabella County: Anglo-American law has permitted tax-foreclosure sales for centuries. The traditional rule requires the government to return the surplus generated by the sale, not the difference between the tax debt and a hypothetical market value. Tyler required governments to return surplus sale proceeds. Pung received those proceeds, so the county satisfied the constitutional requirement recognized in that case. Fair market value assumes a voluntary transaction between willing parties. Property sold through foreclosure is subject to time limits and other restrictions and is therefore worth less in that setting. When an auction is properly conducted, its sale price is the appropriate measure of value. Tax foreclosure is intended to collect revenue and return property to productive use, not to punish delinquent taxpayers. It therefore does not impose a “fine” governed by the Eighth Amendment. ~ ~ ~ Apply the case brief method used in this class to identify the case controversy and constitutional question in this case. As in the case brief assignment, limit your response to five or fewer standard length sentences.