Facts of Jones v. Flowers
In Jones v. Flowers, the Supreme Court examined whether the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment required the state to take additional steps to notify a property owner before selling his home for unpaid taxes.
The case arose when Gary Jones, a homeowner in Little Rock, Arkansas, failed to pay his property taxes after moving out of the house he had purchased in 1967. For three decades, Jones paid his mortgage on time, and the mortgage company paid his taxes. When the mortgage was paid off in 1997, Jones’s wife—who continued living in the home—failed to pay the property taxes.
In April 2000, Mark Wilcox, the Arkansas Commissioner of State Lands, mailed a certified letter to Jones at his former home, informing him that his property taxes were delinquent and that he had two years to redeem the property before it would be sold.
No one signed for the letter, and it was returned “unclaimed.” Two years later, the Commissioner published a notice of public sale in a local newspaper, the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette. When no bids were received, the State arranged a private sale with Linda Flowers. Before finalizing the sale, the Commissioner sent another certified letter to Jones at the same address, but it was again returned “unclaimed.”
Flowers purchased the property for roughly one-fourth of its market value. After the redemption period expired, she served an unlawful detainer notice at the house. The notice was received by Jones’s daughter, who alerted him about the sale. Jones then filed a lawsuit in Arkansas state court, arguing that selling his home without actual notice violated his Fourteenth Amendment right to due process.
The trial court granted summary judgment to Wilcox and Flowers, holding that the Commissioner’s actions satisfied constitutional notice requirements. The Arkansas Supreme Court affirmed, emphasizing that due process did not require actual notice and that certified mail was constitutionally sufficient. Jones appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Issue
Does the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment require the government to take additional reasonable steps to notify a property owner before selling their property when mailed notice is returned unclaimed?
Jones v. Flowers Judgment
Yes. The Supreme Court in Jones v. Flowers held that when a mailed notice of a tax sale is returned unclaimed, the State must take additional reasonable steps to attempt to notify the property owner before selling the property, provided it is practical to do so.
Reasoning in Jones v. Flowers
Chief Justice John G. Roberts, writing for the five-justice majority, emphasized that the government exercises an “extraordinary power” when selling a citizen’s property for unpaid taxes. Due process demands that before the State extinguishes an individual’s ownership interest, it must make a genuine effort to inform them.
The Court found that while sending certified mail was “reasonably calculated” to give notice initially, once the letter was returned unclaimed, the State was on notice that its attempt had failed. Doing nothing further, despite this knowledge, did not satisfy due process. Roberts wrote that a government genuinely seeking to alert someone that their property was in danger would not simply ignore a returned notice.
The Court cited Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co. and Dusenbery v. United States for the principle that due process does not require actual notice, only notice “reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances,” to inform interested parties.
However, Dusenbery was distinguished because, in that case, the government had no indication that notice had failed. By contrast, in Jones v. Flowers, the State knew the certified letters were unclaimed long before proceeding with the sale.
Chief Justice Roberts explained that once the government learns its initial notice was ineffective, it must consider alternatives. Reasonable follow-up steps could have included resending notice via regular mail, posting notice on the property’s door, or addressing the letter to “occupant.”
Each of these options, the Court reasoned, could have alerted the current residents—who had a direct interest in notifying the owner—of the pending sale. In fact, Jones ultimately learned of the sale only because his daughter, an occupant, received a later notice from Flowers.
The Court also rejected the argument that further notice would impose an undue burden on the State. Arkansas already required personal service when certified mail to a homestead owner was returned undelivered, and any costs were recoverable from the property owner or purchaser. Moreover, the State had expended greater effort by publishing newspaper notices and conducting an auction than would have been required to take additional simple steps to notify Jones directly.
Chief Justice Roberts underscored that the purpose of notice is to genuinely attempt to inform, not to check a procedural box. He analogized the State’s conduct to a person watching letters fall down a storm drain and deciding not to resend them. A government “desirous of actually informing” the property owner would make another effort once aware that notice had failed.
The majority concluded that due process required the State to make additional reasonable efforts once the unclaimed mail was returned. The State’s failure to do so rendered the notice inadequate and the sale unconstitutional.
Dissent
Justice Clarence Thomas, joined by Justices Scalia and Kennedy, dissented. He argued that the majority undermined Dusenbery and imposed an unrealistic burden on state governments. Thomas maintained that the adequacy of notice should be judged based on the circumstances at the time it was sent, not after it was returned. Since the State mailed the notice via certified mail and published it in a newspaper, it exceeded constitutional minimums.
The dissent reasoned that due process does not guarantee actual notice but only requires procedures that are reasonably calculated to reach the intended recipient. Imposing a duty to take additional steps every time there is uncertainty about delivery would push the law toward requiring actual notice, something the Constitution does not demand.
Justice Thomas also noted that Jones bore some responsibility. Property owners have a duty to pay taxes and to keep their contact information updated. The dissent warned that the majority’s rule would require states to “hunt down” delinquent taxpayers, significantly increasing administrative burdens without guaranteeing better results.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s decision in Jones v. Flowers clarified that when the government learns that its attempt to provide notice has failed, it must take additional reasonable steps to inform the property owner before depriving them of their property. The ruling reaffirmed the fundamental due process principle that notice must be genuinely calculated to reach the person affected, not merely a procedural formality.
The decision did not require actual notice, but it emphasized that due process is dynamic—it adapts when the government gains knowledge that its initial attempt was ineffective. As Chief Justice Roberts stated, the State’s power to take private property for taxes must be exercised with fairness and diligence.
In the aftermath of Jones v. Flowers, many states reviewed their tax sale and forfeiture procedures to ensure compliance with due process standards. The case serves as a reminder that procedural fairness remains a cornerstone of American constitutional law.