article three standing as someone agreed by government action the court below found that the government does not dispute that second when the court below said she didn't have standing it was meant she was not in the protected zone of interests of the  material facts and this case and attorney are identical both cases involving a foreign national not resident alien for any change claim for just compensation for property located abroad what should we make of the trust you get is the actual value of the real estate you don't get the value of the commercial enterprise would she be entitled to the total just compensation in american terms only  whether the actually thing questions are foreign or domestic he then apply that to a case involving a non citizen abroad state and the question then becomes what constitutional standard apply when the government acts in reference to an alien then spirit foreign operations and those constitutional maybe we should be looking at some of the considerations of substantial connection with the us and whether or not the constitutional protection should be extended to the particular party based upon substantial connections i don't like so demanded that property be taken to provide security for the embassy and the united states embassy personnel over saudi destruction other cafeteria those that make it to the u s people yes you're on what in fact that's exactly why the foreign citizens were intervenors because they had a separate if you go back and read page one actually of the opinion they had a separate contractual right with u s citizens so the end allergy in this case would be if if the appellant here had a separate contractual right with the u s since for the operation of our cafe that would be to analogy there isn't a contract here there's no who issued the puns and turning up well i think it's true that they had a derivative that there were foreign nationals that have seventy percent of the derivative rights to the process but they were not shareholders in the us was specifically you didn't answer the question who received the benefits under turn who issued the money the born citizen up one sentence did receive some money but not as shareholders and that's an important distinction because if you are very specifically cites the cases where after a foreign corporation or any corporation is dissolved case the united states as you probably know filed below a motion to dismiss on that grounds withdrew that motion i think of the promise that that would require a bit of discovery to to get to the bottom of so we withdrew that motion filed a motion under the current but i think it was not an issue of border but in this particular case was done for the benefit of the united states well that that may be so it was done for the benefit of the u s why wouldn't be taking under the fifth amendment at that point where the united states is reaping the benefits of the taking because the united states did not take the specific action i don't think that it's fair to so we're not saying they took the specific action of saying that they are reaping the benefits of the takings well that may be but that would truly expand the fifth amendment if if if this court were to take the position again not at issue in this case but if this court were to take the position that any act of foreign government that benefits the united states that the united attorney as i understand your argument does not really stand for the proposition that a nonresident alien has the in the takings rights with respect to property outside the united states that doesn't  let me let me read this sentence i have in mind and then we can so we'll have a text that we're looking at let's see the i've lost to the particular passage and that's what the court ultimately says at the end of that discussion is that the question of whether or do go overturns turn isn't one that the court needs to address the implication being as i as i read the opinion that tourney absent verdugo would be binding on the court is that do you not read l schieffer as saying turney is is not pertinent they just chose to go another route that would be my position i mean first of all it is all ticked and there's no question about that and she's sick of it and didn't reach the question they summarize the two positions right and what the united states is now argu go justified saying that turkey was no longer a good law i mean if if obviously if the supreme court had said let's say in purdue go with you could argue that dictum holding but if the supreme court is set or no by the way among the various rights that a foreign national with respect to foreign activities does not have is a right under the takings clause presumably we would hesitated very long before saying turney is no longer a good law but i think that's correct the united states position here is that tony does not  other term there are no contacts and there's no contract in turkey there's a contract with the united states which has been held to to meet substantial context here there's nothing there's no there's absolutely no connection between the appellant in this case and the united states this way takes away from the majority opinion that it has to it as any other put it might suggest that the majority opinion should be read more cautiously than one might otherwise read it since one of the members who joined didn't take at least a sweeping view of the scope of the opinion however cautiously you go appellate still has no place there is no basis there is no case that has ever held that a foreign national case that the fifty fifth amendment doesn't apply at all outside the or did the government also argue that given the specific well no the specific factual have been the argument made by the other side i suppose that there is a specific side to the other side argue that the specific facts of this case distinguished it even if the government was right with its restrict to its broad argument it didn't go into the data i think it's fair to say fifty five years ago when turning was decided it was a break but this issue if a district court noted that physically was not before the court and that's why our position is this is a case of first impression the only courts to have a distinguishing factor if this court if you're not convinced by any of the other distinguishing factors i've given look to the contract there was two there were two separate contracts with the court between the corporation and the united states if that's what this court wants to injure the distinguishing point to in turn is not one of them that goes as far as that as the opponents are are trying to go with this but that's a substantial connection there even if you're well that is correct but i don't think it's fair to return to the way that that this issue just wasn't really pitched that way it wasn't decided by the court that way and the best that you can do with time you look at it is a fact specific determination and it's true the court didn't say this fact is the most important factor in this fact is the most important fact but it's very fact intensive and it does not and it cannot stand for the broad proposition that appellate stake here that every foreign national would mean that there's basically no limit because there aren't any foreigners right now and so basically any foreigner that ever has property taken would be able to sue the united states and that that just doesn't stand the scrutiny in that case that my time's up only a handful of cases that is because in that case it requires that the united states direct the taking and the taking be for the benefit of the united states and also as the court recognized in l she brought up the enemy property doctrine political question after the claim have been filed there are some interveners that was there some discussion about that here the interveners what they saw is to actually get one hundred percent of the value because of various other contractual issues that have gone back and forth between the parties in that case and that's why they were intervening in that case