As a threshold matter, did the lower courts err in light of this Court's recent ruling in of Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid , 141 S. Ct. 2063, (2021) that the imposition of a servitude by the City of Albuquerque requiring Ms. Britton's property to be used and damaged in the course of supporting the City of Albuquerque's feral cat colony program was not a taking for which just compensation was required?

And if the threshold for a taking had been crossed by the City's feral cat colony program, could the lower court s conceivably correctly impose qualified immunity to release the City of Albuquerque from its responsibility for the actions of the individual Defendants acting under the color of law to inversely condemn the property of Ms. Brit ton for the public's benefit of operating the feral cat program without providing her just compensation ?

Thus, the final question presented is: Did the lower courts err in dismissing Petitioner's Federal Takings claim and claim for inverse condemnation ag ainst Defendants with prejudice at the pleading stage , deciding that Petitioner's allegations do not state a plausible Penn Central regulatory takings claim?

Did the lower courts err in dismissing Petitioner's Federal Takings claim and claim for inverse condemnation against Defendants with prejudice at the pleading stage?