This Court has recognized that when state governments require landowners to allow entry of persons on a landowner's property that placement of that servitude infringes upon the right of a property owner to exclude the public from his property and that action by government constitutes a taking for which just compensation is owned. See Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid, 141 8. Ct. 2063, 210 L. Ed. 2d 369 (2021). However, the Tenth Circuit and the District of New Mexico refused to acknowledge the correlative of this jurisprudence, which is that if the government enacts a servitude that prohibits a landowner from inviting the public to his property a taking requiring compensation has occurred and then compounded that error by ignoring the jurisprudence of this Court that clearly establishes that claims for a taking of property by state or local governments through inverse condemnations are immediately actionable under Section 1983 and qualified immunity does not apply.

Thus, the question presented is: Did the Tenth Circuit err in providing qualified immunity to Respondents for their actions to inversely condemn the property of the Petitioners to shutter their business and prohibit them from inviting the public to their property on pain of fines and imprisonment?

Did the Tenth Circuit err in providing qualified immunity to Respondents for their actions to inversely condemn the property of the Petitioners to shutter their business and prohibit them from inviting the public to their property on pain of fines and imprisonment?