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
Continue For Free
Create your free account to see the in-depth bias analytics and more.
Continue
Continue
By creating an account, you agree to our Terms and Privacy Policy, and subscribe to email updates. Already a member: Log inBias 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
N/A
- Liberal
- Conservative
Sentence | Sentiment | Bias |
---|---|---|
Unlock this feature by upgrading to the Pro plan. |
Reliability Score Analysis
Policy Leaning Analysis
Politician Portrayal Analysis
Bias Meter
Extremely
Liberal
Very
Liberal
Moderately
Liberal
Somewhat Liberal
Center
Somewhat Conservative
Moderately
Conservative
Very
Conservative
Extremely
Conservative
-100%
Liberal
100%
Conservative
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.