Whether the court of appeals erred in affirming the district court's application of the Colorado River doctrine when the Village of Mount Pleasant used eminent domain to take private property for a private purpose and state proceedings were statutorily barred from addressing constitutional claims

QUESTION PRESENTED Whether the court of appeals erred in affirming the district court, when the Village of Mount Pleasant admitted that it had used eminent domain to take private property for a private purpose (the Foxconn Project), and the district court applied the Colorado River doctrine sua sponte even though the state proceedings were not parallel because the state proceedings were statutorily barred from addressing the Petitioners’ Fifth Amendment public-use claim as well as other constitutional issues.