James W. Tindall v. United States

1.) Whether the lower courts’ orders allowing Respondent to take, possess and use Petitioner’s property for the public good without paying compensation for that use are manifestly unjust and are far departures from the accepted and usual course of judicial proceedings, when the lower courts ignored the clear grant of subject matter jurisdiction found in 28 U.S.C. §1491(a)(l) that includes claims based on the U.S. Constitution and a contract with the United States, when they ignored this Court’s longstanding guidance on considering a motion to dismiss and when they improperly shifted the burden of proof for Respondent’s defenses to Petitioner? 2.) Whether the Due Process and Takings Clause is self-executing (i.e., a cause of action arising directly under the U.S. Constitution) or requires a statute to justify its enforcement, when Respondent exercised its power of eminent domain and took possession of Petitioner’s property and the lower courts concluded that they lacked subject matter jurisdiction over Petitioner’s claim for compensation, despite Petitioner clearly raising the Due Process and Takings Clause issues in Petitioner’s complaint? Although the Supreme Court of the United States (“this Court”) specifically identified this issue as not being addressed in Devillier, et al. v. Texas, 601 U.S. 293 (2024), the current dispute presents that issue with a very straightforward and clean set of facts, where Petitioner’s sole avenue for pursuing his compensation claims against Respondent is in federal court.