case to keep the federal court from reaching the federal constitutional issues my client has raised with respect to texas eminent domain statutes applied to him and eminent domain for sitting by private pipeline is that the pipeline has been delayed i know it's been laid installed across my client property i believe this is in the record but i would check just today i believe it's laid across its full length and it's my understanding that is actually pumping natural gas through it now but i don't know that that's ok with the other side i'm sort of a lance i was curious go ahead with your what's the status of the state condemnation proceeding it is in i would say the recommendations there were objections filed in the state court case about two weeks later at that point possession could take place and it took place around that same point to begin at that point even under your theory it did become a judicial proceeding and state court it did become too late in our theory under the n t in general let me ask about that before because let's say we say you're right this was an administrative proceeding the a i a and junction act didn't apply when judge gino ruled and we send it back and he has an injunction hearing this summer and you win that the problem is now this summer in two thousand and seventeen if he issues an injunction it would undoubtedly would be in joining what is now undoubtedly a state judicial proceeding that the defendant briefly made this argument explaining to me why that isn't the end of the case well because when the one of the main reasons is because at that point if this court has said that we were correct that the n t injunction that didn't apply as of july twelfth or thirteenth july thirteenth is when judge jamail july thirteenth not to twenty sixteen if it didn't apply then th the week what the judge would do at that point me gets it back to belief or asking for at that point it would be that the injunction anti injunction act exception w constitutional claims then they have to dispossess themselves as property that they take they're acting illegally like took it without under color without law and so you want to wind back the clock in protest like we're back in two thousand and sixteen and it was an i mean you there would be an injunction from a federal court in joining what is now undoubtedly by your accounts a judicial proceeding and speak or no that's not quite right if your honor to want to stop this discovery that's going on in state court right now no week in the injunction is you have to dispossess yourself of the property they say the series of right they say that see the cases are different we've done in england reservation the judge exception in it that gives you the authority to issue injunctions against a court proceedings if it's in aid of your own jurisdiction which it would be and to read this otherwise would mean you could never get to a case in a situation like this because adult we appeal the day i happen to usually not agree with but i agree with in this particular instance it cortical it's better seen as a due process case is really what it is but in any in spite of that real bears and you banks are not separation local government cases so i don't think that is standards but the second claim though is to the quick take provisions of these are both as applied to translate as we have time strike down the whole scheme but the second positions where there's ever a determination of valuation or the right to take and it has particular pertinence here because you've got a pride in most instances you'll have a city texas highway department something like that is the con in the war and there's no question about the right t said again that's that that one's about the timing and that is the most crucial i would say for the issue we have in front of you right now and by the time it gets back there is they should never have been able to use that provision to take his property before even under state law he gets a chance what you're what you're the talk on the on the power of the state to enable a private entity to do that and that and i'm just going to the end of the game and saying ok we go through all that what really do you have to comes new on that and i haven't heard that well i don't i just i'm a brief because i think you can overstate arment here are they i'm not agreeing with you've heard it all but i but i don't agree that this not support for that because i think you have over generalize what our claim is it's there are no standards they don't have a standard for root for environmental concerns for we have they don't have any standards if you look at the get what i consider no matter what you judge the public interest none there is if you look at the texas law that there's no there's no there's nothing if you look at the federal energy regulatory decision that allowed him to bifurcate one fifth of a mile of the pipeline from the one of the forty eight environment in the issues the really issues they have standards so it's not like this is an attack broad scale attack it is and i've actually spoke about this recently in denver other states have some standards so if this isn't like striking pipeline ability to condemn across the country it is if you're going to let them do this this is one of the most awesome powers of government if you're going to let him do this he's going to let a private profit making company be able to say to a private ent the natural gas act you don't get the eminent domain authority until you've convinced first that you should get a certificate than is an assessment and that opens it up to here public hearings there was a big public hearing this case in in i can't remember it seems an obvious concern for people but it's not baseless and it's not not weird is it is it is with in stablished constitutional law root like i said before but even separate from that which is not been discussed in these other cases which i think applies here is even if there isn't sufficient the end clearly the judge acquire jurisdiction  approached by the i think all i can say is if we had come in before the state proceeding was initiated we would been premature because we were in the can the condemnation battle at that point it was only when the state proceeding was an issue so question i ask you what's the status of the tour pipeline and the pipeline is fully constructed is packed with gas goes to mexico mexico doesn't have their side of pipeline ready it also will deliver some gas along the way to some of the local towns but the pipeline is fully constructed and i think you also asked the status of the state case basically we filed a motion for summary judgment on the right to take a shoes on i think probably a month or so ago mr bush about a motion for continuance to area they form the coalition everybody knew about it it was all over the news the local news radio station it was it was known to everybody at that time if we were to reverse it goes back judge you know issues an injunction the other side ultimately went to us to pay to pull the pipeline up texas has its own well i guess at the interplay between texas and federal under texas law if we go in and condemn or we don't have the right to take it then we have to remove it at our cost and there's actually statutes in texas that provide a remedy for that very situation when texas allows media possession they provided with land under safeguards to pass constitutional muster for that they make you post the amount a ward plus a bond equal to that amount to injunction and younger but texas system is very similar to the federal system is similar to this the the system in almost all the states they all have this procedure whereby you have a commissioner's hearing you liquidate an amount you put it in the registry through the administrative phase until someone the commissioners had their word and someone files objections and it goes to digital i will say this in the lazy easy case was a supreme court of texas decided just recently they said they had the jurisdiction to determine their own jurisdiction civil case and whether it's in the administrative phase i think that's a very compelling case and more compelling is it relied on two earlier supreme court cases the madisonville traction case in the searle case both of which involve very similar situations to this and i can tell you the federal court was reaching as i don't think they like to take state condemnation cases and they were not trying to take those on removal bases i can promise you if you look at it in the if you read the cases so i think that all the courts if you read are bracing every court this addressed it said how important eminent domain is to each of the different states because if you think about it the the right is granted by the state to bring public projects online and so each state is very  interested in the proceedings of his own eminent domain statues so i don't think there's anything that's probably more important to a state than is in a domain procedures the cases they cite the harris county case completely different procedure where they had a court of condemnation that was completely and involved with the court proceeding you're preceded a court proceeding so we would urge your honour's to to to follow the saatchi line of cases and it is subject to the n t injunction and i thought you brought to issue an issue up to what can the district court really do if it goes back to them on this whole injunction issue mate he went back and they went back in a minute or pleadings to say i want you to remove it and restore us to possession but i don't think the court can do that because all that happened after it became a civil cause even if even if you conclude that it was administrative in it was not something the anti injunction that before i don't i think he's hands fron unconstitutional that are not injunctive in nature so he has a real problem getting injunctive relief i think in the district court below he can still pursue and that's why younger is important for us is we don't believe the state court shit on the federal court should be able to proceed on the constitutional issues because of the younger doctors if i can move there before i do i do want to point out that in the sprint case and younger and relying on the new orleans case how they talk about how these proceedings these these like any condemnation case goes doctors simply requires oh well let's go to spring because you know you had the metal sacks factors ready consider the three things and then when the supreme court came out with sprint they came up and said no that's not the way you do it you've got to fall into one of these three categories in order for younger to apply think we can all probably agree on that and whether or not those factors middlesex factors then get considered after you get in one of those three categories that's up to debate but it is as we said we fall in the exception three which is state civil proceedings involving orders uniquely in furtherance of the state courts ability to perform judicial functions i think the only argument they made is they made the same argument that it's not a civil proceeding but you're  younger now i mean it clearly is a geisha proceeding as of july fourteenth so i don't think you can make that argument anymore on the younger doctrine maybe on the anti injunction they still came i think it flies in the face of the cases i cited  so a couple of the i think the main case we rely upon in ours is the duty free case which is our the first circuit and it basically said that lower courts have held since one nine hundred seventy five that younger applies to imminent domain proceedings not a grant you it was a priest grant case but they have unanimously held since one nine hundred seventy five that it applies and they cited the hawaii housing case saying that it was a negative inference that the supreme court had said that as well and i think you  the immediate possession of the property if the content or satisfies the requirements you can't do that if you stop the case at the commissioner's level before they get to make their decision the court cannot give you possession in fall the statutes if they stop it midstream so it clearly when they appoint commissioners when the court appoints commissioners that is an order in furtherance of the course ability to perform its functions that they interfered with through this action that they took and they want to decide all these cases that concern administrative orders administrative orders i can agree those theoretically are not in further as of a state courts ability to perform his judicial functions but when you order you enter an order and someone you were talking about this essential judicial function but the federal district court had it had before it had before it had a pending application for an injunction and then what's happened is it's  here and to try to get that argument back before you because i know you're not focused precisely on that i'll focus on that and i think sprint was very i mean sprint said a lot of things and i think it it told everybody that courts don't necessarily just to further state courts i read that unless you followed him one of those three categories then they must abstain and what did they do in this case they went in and filed an injunction request after the judge appointed commissioners civil proceeding there is no question that a condemnation case is a civil proceeding from the time it's filed to the time it finishes even though it goes through administrative phase and a judicial phase is clearly a civil proceeding and end i mean i think the the item three it just hits it squarely because i think there could be no doubt that what they asked the report to do was to interfere with the order appointing commissioners which would prevent the state sorry i didn't realize i let me ask you a question not esoteric is this when i was in jag school i had a  a professor who said when they tell you that the principle is more important than the money it's the money when they tell you the money is more important than the principle it's the pre so my question is is this a case where the principal the r i and the p l o leader is more important than the money here or is this a case that money is really the solution or driver given that the pipeline is laid and all of that sort of stuff do you follow what i'm saying here i mean i get the very very complex multi layer gas is flowing through it to mexico and i will go any further into the mexico piece of it that it's just you know the genie is out the bottle to a degree so i'm trying to get to you know is this a case where a pronouncement from our panel back to the district court more proceedings etc etc on all these important principles is really driving here or is this a case where take you away from i just want to make sure that i'm not totally out of the field of money is here it is know it rippin up but the notion to be a ripping up this pipeline in the gas not flowing not withstanding you said in answer ju think all right i got you i'll go ahead i only have about two and a half minutes left out cover very briefly some of the questions that were asked i think earlier about the actual merits the case on the merits  we don't believe that they should get that desirable course you get to the marriage because the two hurdles that are in the way of it but we do have to join a case that was decided that once the supreme court the supreme court didn't write an opinion on it but it is supreme court authority and they routing the amount of land and all of those things under abuse of discretion or overtraining capricious standard now is a higher standard but that's been the standard that texas and most other states have had since they passed in the domain statutes back in the  take that has been upheld i don't know i could just go through a litany of cases on that but across the country from the united states supreme court standpoint in every state in the country has upheld the quick take in why do they oppose the quick take because the land is protected by the initial deposit in most cases additional money on top of that in almost every kind of nations system has a say a procedure for what happens if the condom norge wrong or they have to pay for the possession in the removal of pipeline system so the constitutional guarantees in the protections are there that's why it's been upheld across the nation and i appreciate your time it's about this big corporate see what's next foreseeable step in the state court proceedings they next foreseeable step we have there's two issues in a state condemnation case one has the right to take if they challenge it and the other is compensation and so right now we're trying to get the court to rule on the right to take issue leaving only compensation to be decided and then it will be either decided by the court or by a jury and has done the novo without any consideration being given to what the special commissioners did you can even introduce that into evidence so there's a brand new look in the  the court as to compensation does this have any kind of a no in louisiana these things have a fast track x expedited trajectory the normal civil steps it does say that in fact there have been cases that have interpreted the statute they said the legislature enacted a system to provide for the quick possession of properties the public projects could be brought online quickly so the possessory part of the condemnation cases very quick whereas the compensation part can leg behind that by some degree are part of the reason i ask you about the money side of it is that well i ask because of the obvious reason but as part of the court's apparatus we do have a a very adept circuit mediation office with their staff very excellent mediators the way it's set up there's a proverbial wall between us judges and that office so we don't know what's over there who's there turns of down yada yada yada but in many cases making the parties aware that the circuit mediation office is located here and to the extent that money may be a fact or even thought even narrowing the principles down or otherwise moving this thing along we would at least want both of you to check it out as we say and see if not but nobody this is not a pronouncement from here to abandon you know the legal principles and arguments being made but just simple to say it does strike of a kind of dispute that has a lot of different layers time to time issues money issues parted setter and they're very adaptive put those kind of things particularly big commercial cases to move them along to a point more expeditiously then didn't get a ruling we just simply if we know that it's going on put the stopper in the bottle and you know if it doesn't then we do what we do in terms of the issues so i just want to say that to all concerned but they're on this same floor the second floor around a corner so if you're not catching the first thing smoke it out and it was a maybe you know at least worth checking out so to once the principle was established you could determine if there was a price that would take care of the principle our argument here is the principle here is they shouldn't be able to take it's property using eminent domain that changes the whole dynamic what would happen if the principle is taken away i mean it is in force that they can't do that i'm not the guy to ask whether it would lead to anything but it could just as you said in justice justice scalia said let me talk  ask on the an injunction act i mean it seems to me it's a difficult issue because you say cases like print did this in an roudebush from the supreme court where they said no the act doesn't apply because those whole proceedings  where the act did apply because the whole proceeding was judicial we've got this hybrid here so given it's starts out administrative but it ends judicial i think everybody pretty much everyone agrees on that doesn't have to that has already kicked in the proceeding itself as commands so what's your best case for splitting it into and i think your argument requires splitting it into almost two separate proceedings yes well my best case is the fact that the but it talked about it hasn't moved into the judicial phase which suggests that as long as it hasn't made that transition you can still enjoy it which makes perfect sense because a lot of those other cases i haven't done the analysis of but in those cases roudebush premiss a that all those cases kinds of cases tend to end up at some point in court if somebody doesn't like what the virginia corporation commission that's done with their sport with respect to an adjudication of rates can move into the judicial phase of the challenge to the rights and so they did they did that all the time back then so i don't think that is an impediment but the best quote i have and i can't remember the facts of hill versus martin but the best quote of that is from hill versus morton directly say the the transition until the the issues with respect to an injunction that could affect those proceedings and we were a lot of trying to stop those proceedings we were trying to keep them from taking a position the jointer case that was cited i have in the us something about because it was decided by a three judge court of  groundwork for say the quick take provision is invalid this court has not appeal quick take in the case that they sided texas came from the name of in this court said that what was not invalid under the texas statute is the