Melvin Watt: “the primary purpose would be to remove the discretion for a litigant to go to the Court of Federal Claims or to the U.S.…”

“the primary purpose would be to remove the discretion for a litigant to go to the Court of Federal Claims or to the U.S. district court, which I think is an unconstitutional discretion, and still give to a litigant the right to take their claim to the U.S. district court, an Article III court, and have their claim determined in its entirety. They could litigate the constitutionality of the taking; they can litigate the amount of compensation they are due as a result of the taking. All of that can be addressed in the United States District Court. In our opinion, to give a litigant the option of going to the U.S. Court of Claims, the Federal Court of Claims, is an unconstitutional act, because those judges are not Article III judges. I have already summarized that. I will not belabor that point anymore. I do have a severe concern that the reason that this option is being offered under the bill is for political purposes.”