Reason Article Rating

Major Unanimous Supreme Court Victory for Property Rights in Tyler v. Hennepin County

  • Bias Rating

    32% Somewhat Conservative

  • Reliability

    50% ReliableFair

  • Policy Leaning

    32% Somewhat Conservative

  • Politician Portrayal

    38% Negative

Bias Score Analysis

The A.I. bias rating includes policy and politician portrayal leanings based on the author’s tone found in the article using machine learning. Bias scores are on a scale of -100% to 100% with higher negative scores being more liberal and higher positive scores being more conservative, and 0% being neutral.

Sentiments

Overall Sentiment

N/A

  •   Liberal
  •   Conservative
SentenceSentimentBias
Unlock this feature by upgrading to the Pro plan.

Bias Meter

Extremely
Liberal

Very
Liberal

Moderately
Liberal

Somewhat Liberal

Center

Somewhat Conservative

Moderately
Conservative

Very
Conservative

Extremely
Conservative

-100%
Liberal

100%
Conservative

Bias Meter

Contributing sentiments towards policy:

63% : Finally, in addition to her Takings claim, Tyler argued that the seizure of her home equity violated the Excessive Fines Clause of the Eighth Amendment.
58% : The question presented is whether this constituted a taking of property without just compensation, in violation of the Fifth Amendment.....
56% : In Timbs v. Indiana (2019), the Supreme Court ruled that civil asset forfeitures sometimes qualify as excessive fines under the Eighth Amendment.
51% : Today the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that such practices qualify as takings requiring the payment of "just compensation" under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment.
47% : The State now makes an exception only for itself, and only for taxes on real property.
45% : In collecting taxes, the new Government of the United States could seize and sell only "so much of [a] tract of land . . .
42% : States have long imposed taxes on property.
41% : The County identifies just three States that deemed delinquent property entirely forfeited for failure to pay taxes.....
40% : First, the District Court concluded that the Minnesota tax-forfeiture scheme is not punitive because "its primary purpose" is "remedial" -- aimed, in other words, at "compensat[ing] the government for lost revenues due to the nonpayment of taxes."
40% : Second, the District Court asserted that the Minnesota tax-forfeiture scheme cannot "be punitive because it actually confers a windfall on the delinquent taxpayer when thev alue of the property that is forfeited is less than the amount of taxes owed."

*Our bias meter rating uses data science including sentiment analysis, machine learning and our proprietary algorithm for determining biases in news articles. Bias scores are on a scale of -100% to 100% with higher negative scores being more liberal and higher positive scores being more conservative, and 0% being neutral. The rating is an independent analysis and is not affiliated nor sponsored by the news source or any other organization.

Copy link