appellant's landowners united advocacy foundation as i said i need to start this morning with a confession i am a taking is laundered and i'm going to do my best today to attempt to geek out to not  did when the next decision came down i still have my federal society shirt that has the famous quote from justice thomas on the back of it about that something has gone seriously awry and i need to acknowledge right up front that ultimately i  do understand that i'm facing at least two appeal quine's today but i do think that ultimately what the the supreme court has done and nick gets me to the top of those hills explain  climb it's a tax injunction act your honor i don't know that i agree with that statement i do think well i don't it will be an easy climb but the tried to do it and what i don't see how you can overcome that and i do think as you pointed out in our reply brief the justice kennedy's dissent maps out the top of that hill or the climb to the top of the hill rather certainly in hicks there's a discussion about the establishment clause but the more importantly in both the majority opinion though it's not very clear in the majority opinion certainly it's quite made clear in justice kinsey kennedy's dissent that when you look at the series of court cases surrounding board vieja get brown v board of education and the attempts by the states to evade equal protection and if they brown by manipulating their tax structures i believe that puts us on all fours with the situation we have here i think that if you look at what's going on in this case in colorado you have a situation where the state of colorado is in effect attempting to take private property without providing the just compensation and the have clawed back that just compensation that they originally promised i think that's a kin to brown v board of education's equal protection analysis that shows up in other federal court decisions that are referenced in the majority decision in the hit hips case so it hit stands for the proposition that there is there are exist exemptions to the tax injunction act i think this fits within that the ones bringing suit were trying to stop collection of attacks they were trying to compel collection of attacks am i correct about that you are and i am as well of that that's you don't way of putting it and so that wouldn't apply when you're trying to get the government to collect a tax that it's not collecting well and to your own is point i agree that that is the situation but wh essentially asking the court here to do is to take what is referenced in the hit his decision both in the majority and in the in the dissent as this broader reading that says that when there's some sort of major constitutional implication at issue that the courts of course have the authority to deal with that that applies in this situation so it is a broadening of the on this this discussion of tact tax credits versus tax collection will give an example when the supreme court or  as that t i a doesn't apply even though the suit is to try to prevent collection of attack there's not one or that no candidly there's not one that's why you have such a steep like i understand i understand and i like i said i do believe that the cases that are cited in his decision though they don't and i think justice kennedy correctly points out though that's not really what animates the court that's part of his dissent he's saying that what animates the court is actually that you have a state government attempting to avoid constitutional protections by manipulating attached i think that's important to read out of hibs is that is that is essentially what colorado has done in this and they've done so to the detriment of hundreds of millions of dollars of private property rights that they that they have for all practical purposes it's got of with without providing just compensation we're not saying they don't have a right to relief you just have to go elsewhere i understand there are courts and go the supreme u a steep hill i do acknowledge that i do think that the state there's no way that this court could accurately read that a state is allowed to avoid the implications of the th amendment by the tax injunction act that just gets to the simple premise that statute cannot supersede a constitutional protection congress couldn't have done that now they get to and they didn't they didn't say that you have a right there's no constitutional right that's in the tax context you lose your constitutional right is that if you if if that's what the tax injunction extends for that you have to exhaust the remedies in the state court proceeding and then we have the next case saying that no you don't and that's in my opinion and candidly to the court i will also admit there has been and some further authority from the the th circuit that has come out on this judge hota decision judge pollak of course has the williams decision which is in the briefing and it's discussed in this decision from judge ho which is and the court forgive me i write this opportunity to make a decision that is more in line with the nick case than either judge hole or judge baltic have done at this point justice roberts in his opinion majority opinion judge hose decision he references justice kagan these sent in that case as pointing out that there is no waiver of sovereign immunity really discussed in the majority opinion i think that's where both judge hoge of mist was just justice roberts was after which is that minute immunity would be forced to go through the the state court proceeding is the is the exact opposite of what justice roberts is getting at in his majority opinion i think that's also reflected in justice thomas concurring opinion that there's this recognize that justice roberts decision cuts off these long standing chain of cases regarding th amendment immunity for compensation from a citizen against the state what would permit i would retain the rest of my time for of colorado's tax collection there are three reasons that the district court's dismissal of this case should be affirmed st the tax injunction act bars in this case nd the common t doctrine between federal and state courts supports dismissal and rd the claims against the real estate apple lease are moot and barred by the th amendment so st the district court correctly held that all of the claims in this case that federal courts shall not enjoin suspend or restrain the assessment or collection of any tax under state law where a plane a speedy and efficient remedy may be had in the courts of such state so there are two requirements in the way the st requirement is the enjoined suspend or restrain the assessment levy or collection of state tax requirement and the nd requirement is the plain speedy and efficient state court remedy require it and the district court found that the st requirement to satisfied here because the relief that landowner seeks would prevent colorado from challenging tax credits which would prevent colorado from collecting tax revenue now i think this is also a good time just to touch on hips judge hearts you have the exact right reading of hips holding in hips is that a challenge to the provision of a tax credit where that challenge to denials of tax credits that would decrease state revenue so this is exactly the opposite of the situation in hips and his does not apply now landowners argues that the important part of the tips is amendment case i believe it's a free exercise case the grace rather than church cases such cited the briefs us supreme court and a federal courts have also applied the tax and junction act to other important constitutional rights including  scase which we cited in the briefs which was the lawyer of the hilton head case as well as equal protection and due process cases as well so the type of constitutional right issue has no bearing on the tax and night analysis what you look does not nick it does not even concern the tax and auction act it instead overruled the requirement that a property owner must st bring a case in state court to seek just compensation before the property owner could is this case must be dismissed if there are any questions about the tax reduction act i will now move on to comedy the common doctrine also supports dismissal the company doctrine encourages federal courts to conservation easement tax credits which would prevent colorado from collecting tax revenue that would both disrupt tax ministration as well as fiscal operations in colorado the landowners does not regarding tax credit claims that were made before two one thousand and fourteen dollars and during that period the department of revenue not the division of real estate was the sole state agency in charge of administering that tax credit program and a couple of points to address the opposing counsel raised the st i think i'd like to address is the comedy discussion i think that really when you get down to looking at that the city colorado raises it for the point of rightness i think comedy also stands for the part of the proposition of exhaustion in takings cases and i think that's what becomes that issue in nick nick's nick didn't deal just with rightness nick dealt with exhaustion of state court remedies and the court was clear that was no longer a requirement that the moment that you're taking became right which is when the property was taken without just compensation you could proceed under section  what we've done in this case i think that that's more on forms with what we're doing here and certainly that doesn't completely resolve the issue of whether or not this is a takings case involving that the taking of private property without just compensation or this is merely a tax and i think it's clear from the briefing from both parties that that is really as you want to point out a very high hill for us to climb but it is a a surmountable hill and i think that again looking at more of the nuances when it comes to whether this is in the facts of whether this is a takings case or a tax case are important the state of colorado offered in consideration for the taking of private property or the donating of private property in this instance conservation easements they offered tax credits that's the consideration this isn't a dispute about what the tax code are or does or does not say about this this is a dispute about whether or not that just compensation could be reduced ex pos facto and i think that i think is a major point that the district were missed i think that the prohibition on an ex post facto law contained in the colorado constitution should be given more weight in deciding what this actually is that in combination of course with the prohibition of taking without property or taking property without just compensation also part of the colorado compensation colorado's clearly run afoul of several their own provisions in the constitution their constitution not to mention the th amendment and this court should find that this is a taking scase where they have taken private property without just compensation the fact that it gets wrapped around the axle on a tax injunction act it's you i think is resolved through his thank you thank you counsel cases