instances where the state is depriving just compensation but that the th amendment bypassing the states consented to be obligated to pay just compensation which arises out court that finally was there was a tape that there was a new use of the property that was not previously authorized but instead of paying just compensation the result was a nominal amount of five hundred dollars for the justices are just as gorsuch and justice thomas said that the decision rendered by the mississippi supreme court to really compensation is in pamphlet with the teachings of the u s supreme court need for the federal courts to seem to be involved but the congress is free if the state court process does not yield and does not provide due process which in this type of case means just compensation that constitutional right under the self executing character of taking spots that violation continues until just compensation is paid in this particular case there were two options when officials are on a points property without authority the only authority that allows them to remain on the property or to be on the property for these new uses would be the point with the payment of just compensation which clearly has not happened am i think this court needs to address in the post new world what happens with property owners who were once told before jacobs which is what i discussed a little bit earlier about tucker should apply to the states as well that reasoning should be applied to the states as well other words the constitutional right immunity from  from the takings point i'm just trying to figure out in terms of the rabbit ears are you asking your the two things like a thick thick of that you might be asking for one is the better of the backwards looking remedy of just compensation you take my property i deserve money what i got was not enough i want money ok that's one another would be the forward looking relief of you're on my property get off we have asked for both your honor yes you're arguing that it is that it should not have been taken in the st place no matter what well season and they're welcome to use it as they see fit or they can get off you know that we are what you are tell me about that argument when the government obviously can take under imminent domain  in this particular case just compensation would be satisfactory this is not his property doesn't have any particular sentimental value as would be in some other instances right but in this particular in this case just one moment on that that was for the construction operation of toll project number one across the bay st louis that bridge was severely damaged by hurricane katrina and they decided that they were going to repair they removed inspects like it said it would be and we got confirmation on that that's not what they choose to do it chose to build a new highway new design new location and one other thing when they put the we owe them just compensation that's what they want it's not they're not asking for any kind of the current or really that there's any ongoing violation of federal law here is there any claim and and just record at the start of public use you want the property back completely or did you only seek compensation and we only saw just compensation in the state court or you judicially stopped at this point from seeking anything else but you went to court asking the state give you money that's correct council stated that the state of mississippi has paid five hundred dollars which was the value of the law so they have the right to use it as a park they have not paid for that public park unless it's on publicly own property those statutes are being violated today will be violated tomorrow we are seeking in addition to the the just compensation plain