547 U.S. 220 (2006)
In 1967 Gary Kent Jones purchased a house at 717 North Bryan Street in Little Rock, Arkansas.1 He lived in the house with his wife until they separated in 1993, after which his wife continued to reside there while Jones moved to an apartment.2
Jones paid his mortgage for thirty years until paying it off in 1997, after which the property taxes went unpaid and the property was certified as delinquent.3 In April 2000, the Commissioner of State Lands mailed a certified letter to Jones at the North Bryan Street address.4 The letter notified him of the tax delinquency and his right to redeem the property before a public sale scheduled for April 2002.5 The letter was returned to the Commissioner marked "unclaimed."6
Two years later the Commissioner published notice of the public sale in the Arkansas Democrat Gazette.7 No bids were submitted at the auction, which permitted the State to negotiate a private sale.8 Several months later respondent Linda K. Flowers submitted a purchase offer.9 The Commissioner mailed a second certified letter to Jones at the same address notifying him that the house would be sold to Flowers if the taxes remained unpaid.10 This letter was also returned marked "unclaimed."11
Flowers purchased the property for $21,042.15, although the parties stipulated its fair market value was $80,000.12 After the thirty-day post-sale redemption period expired, Flowers caused an unlawful detainer notice to be served on Jones's daughter at the property, who then contacted Jones about the sale.13 In December 2001 Jones filed a complaint in Arkansas state court against the Commissioner and Flowers alleging that the sale violated due process because he received no adequate notice of the pending tax sale.14
The trial court granted summary judgment to the defendants.15 The Arkansas Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the certified mail attempts satisfied due process.16 The Supreme Court of the United States granted certiorari to resolve a conflict among the circuits and state supreme courts concerning whether the Due Process Clause requires additional reasonable steps when mailed notice of a tax sale is returned undelivered.17
Whether the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment requires a State to take additional reasonable steps to provide notice to a property owner of an impending tax sale when a certified mail notice is returned unclaimed?18
The Due Process Clause requires the government to provide notice reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action and afford them an opportunity to present their objections.19 When the government learns that its attempt at notice by certified mail has failed because the letter was returned unclaimed, it must take additional reasonable steps to provide notice if it is practicable to do so.20
Yes. The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment requires the government to provide notice reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action and afford them an opportunity to present their objections. When the government learns that its attempt at notice by certified mail has failed because the letter was returned unclaimed, it must take additional reasonable steps to provide notice if it is practicable to do so. Here, the Commissioner knew that both certified letters sent to Jones at 717 North Bryan Street were returned unclaimed, yet took no further steps beyond publishing notice in a newspaper, which is insufficient when the owner's address is known.21
Reasonable additional steps such as resending by regular mail, posting notice on the property, or addressing mail to "occupant" were available and practicable, as the State had the address and knew someone had previously signed for an earlier notice.22 The State's failure to take such steps violated Jones's right to due process.23
The Due Process Clause requires a State to take additional reasonable steps to provide notice to a property owner of an impending tax sale when a certified mail notice is returned unclaimed.24
Related opinions on this issue
Joined by Justice Scalia; Justice Kennedy As To All But Part Ii And The Last Paragraph Of Part Iii
Justice Thomas dissented, arguing that the State's use of certified mail to the record address provided by Jones, combined with publication in the newspaper, satisfied due process because due process does not require actual notice and the methods were reasonably calculated to inform the owner.25 He contended that the return of the letters as unclaimed did not trigger an obligation for additional steps, as the adequacy of notice is determined ex ante, and the State was not required to undertake further efforts when it learned of the failure after the fact.26 Thomas emphasized that Jones had a duty to maintain his current address with the taxing authority, and the additional steps proposed would impose undue burdens on the State without being constitutionally mandated.27