Dykema Appellate Group in Motion at the Supreme Court

Dykema’s Appellate and Critical Motions Group is actively engaged in multiple matters before the Supreme Court of the United States, with significant involvement spanning merits-stage amicus briefing, certiorari-stage advocacy, and attendance at oral argument. Across these matters, Chantel Febus has served as principal author and team lead on the firm’s Supreme Court briefing, reflecting Dykema’s continued leadership in high-stakes constitutional and regulatory litigation.

Takings and Property-Tax Foreclosure Cases

Dykema’s most concentrated Supreme Court activity this term has involved a series of cases addressing constitutional challenges to state and local property-tax foreclosure systems and the scope of the Takings Clause.

In Pung v. Isabella County, Dykema served as counsel to amici curiae and filed a merits-stage brief on behalf of the Michigan Association of Counties, the Michigan Municipal League, the Michigan Township Association, and the Michigan Association of County Treasurers. The brief—principally authored and led by Chantel Febus and Ted Seitz with support from James Azadian, Andrew Hussey, Monika Harris, and David Ter-Petrosyan—addresses the significant federalism and constitutional questions raised by attempts to expand the Supreme Court’s 2023 decision in Tyler v. Hennepin County. Ted Seitz and James Azadian attended the argument.

At issue is whether states must provide fair-market-value compensation following tax foreclosure and whether ordinary tax assessment and collection practices may be challenged under the Excessive Fines Clause of the Eighth Amendment. The Court’s decision could have far-reaching implications for how states administer property-tax systems and maintain local government funding structures.

Dykema’s involvement in these issues extends beyond Pung. The firm also filed responses in opposition to certiorari in Howard v. Macomb County and Koetter v. Manistee County Treasurer, successfully defending Michigan counties against takings-based constitutional challenges to the state’s statutory foreclosure framework. The Supreme Court denied certiorari in both matters on January 12, leaving in place lower court rulings rejecting those challenges and reinforcing stability in Michigan’s surplus-proceeds process.

Together, these matters reflect a coordinated appellate strategy defending state and local governments against efforts to expand federal takings liability in the property-tax context, with Chantel Febus serving as the lead architect of the briefing strategy across the cases.

Federal Preemption and Transportation Regulation

In addition to its takings-related work, Dykema was retained to file a merits-stage amicus curiae brief on behalf of American Honda Motor Co., Inc. in Montgomery v. Caribe Transport II et al., a case raising consequential federal preemption questions affecting the automotive, logistics, and transportation sectors.

The case asks whether state common law negligent-selection claims against freight brokers and other non-motor carrier entities are preempted by the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act of 1994. Dykema’s brief argues that allowing such claims would improperly expand state regulation into an area Congress expressly sought to deregulate, with significant implications for national supply chains. The briefing was led by Chantel Febus and Mike Carey, assisted by Jimmy Azadian, T.J. Lurie, Monika Harris, David Ter-Petrosyan, and Sadie Betting.

Continued Supreme Court Engagement

This sustained engagement highlights Dykema’s depth in complex appellate matters, particularly in constitutional litigation involving takings, federalism, and regulatory preemption. With Chantel Febus leading the firm’s Supreme Court practice efforts across multiple matters, the team continues to advance clients’ interests in significant legal debates before the nation’s highest court.