James W. Tindall v. Department of Labor, Administrative Review Board

1.) Whether the doctrine of federal sovereign immun­ ity has any basis in the U.S. Constitution or is pre­ cluded by the U.S. Const., Art. Ill, Sec. 2, which specifically defines the power of the judicial branch to include “Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party” without any limi­ tation or constraint? 2.) Whether the doctrine of federal sovereign immun­ ity (whatever its scope is determined to be) can possibly satisfy the appropriate constitutional standard of review (strict scrutiny) when that ju­ dicially-created doctrine limits petitioner’s consti­ tutional right to seek review by the judicial branch for the illegal conduct of the federal government (or its employees) and when that doctrine also in­ fringes on petitioner’s 1st Amendment right to free speech and to seek redress? 3.) If the doctrine of federal sovereign immunity has any basis in the U.S. Constitution, whether the doctrine of federal sovereign immunity is a broad power or is a narrow power that applies only when the federal government is wielding its limited and specifically-defined sovereign powers? 4.) Whether the lower court properly applied the nu­ merous exceptions to the doctrine of federal sover­ eign immunity when the lower court declined to properly apply the Ultra Vires Exception, ignored the clear language of the APA Exception and ig­ nored Congress’ clear intent to allow for judicial re­ view of respondent’s determinations under 26 U.S.C. §7623(d)(2)(A)(i), which specifically incorporates the rules and procedures of 49 U.S.C. §42121(b) to allow for a direct appeal by the Court of Appeals?