Pung v. Isabella County
146 S. Ct. 1964 · Decided June 23, 2026 · Supreme Court of the United States
Record summary. This page is generated from the Supreme Court Database’s coded data about the case. It describes who decided what, not the Court’s reasoning. Read the opinion itself before relying on it. Not legal advice.
At a glance
Pung v. Isabella County was decided on June 23, 2026 unanimously (9–0). The Court vacated the lower court's decision and remanded the case. Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. wrote the opinion of the Court. SCDB classifies its main issue as “Due process, takings clause” in the Due Process area.
Read the opinion
- CourtListener (Free Law Project) — opinion text
- Supreme Court of the United States — slip opinions, October Term 2025
- Supreme Court of the United States — docket 25-95
Case details
- Citations
- 146 S. Ct. 1964 · 225 L. Ed. 2d 373 · 2026 U.S. LEXIS 2715
- Docket number
- 25-95
- Decided
- June 23, 2026
- Argued
- February 25, 2026
- Court era
- Roberts Court
- Decision type
- Opinion of the Court (orally argued)
- Disposition
- Vacated and remanded
- Outcome for petitioner
- The petitioning party received a favorable disposition
- Vote
- 9–0 (unanimous)
- Majority opinion
- Samuel A. Alito Jr.
- Opinion assigned by
- John G. Roberts Jr.
- How the case arrived
- Certiorari
- Issue (SCDB)
- Due process, takings clause
- Issue area
- Due Process
- Legal provision
- Fifth Amendment (takings clause)
- Type of law
- Constitutional amendment
- Decision direction (SCDB)
- Liberal what this means
How the Justices voted
| Justice | Vote | Separate writing |
|---|---|---|
| Justice Clarence Thomas | Special concurrence | Wrote an opinion |
| Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. | Majority | |
| Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. | Majority | Wrote an opinion |
| Justice Sonia Sotomayor | Concurrence | Wrote an opinion |
| Justice Elena Kagan | Majority | |
| Justice Neil M. Gorsuch | Special concurrence | |
| Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh | Majority | |
| Justice Amy Coney Barrett | Majority | |
| Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson | Concurrence |
Full case caption
Pung v. Isabella County, Michigan
SCDB identifiers: case 2025-041, docket 2025-041-01.
Related decisions
Other cases on “Due process, takings clause”
- Culley v. Marshall
- Devillier v. Texas
- Sheetz v. County of El Dorado
- Tyler v. Hennepin CountyLaw held unconstitutional
- Penneast Pipeline Co. v. New Jersey
- Pakdel v. City and County of San FranciscoLaw held unconstitutional
Cases on the same legal provision: Fifth Amendment (takings clause)
- Agins et Ux. v. City of Tiburon
- Gurley v. Rhoden
- City of Pittsburgh v. Alco Parking Corp.
- United States v. Fuller et Ux.
- United States v. Grand River Dam Authority
- General Box Co. v. United States
Source: Supreme Court Database, 2026 Release 01 (data file dated September 8, 2026). Imported into CaseTrail November 5, 2026. Coverage: decisions from the 1946 through 2025 Terms. Methodology · Report an error