Can the federal government class action an Eminent Domain lawsuit? The only way for President Trump to build the wall will be to get private land on the border. Some will undoubtedly refuse sale. Will the Department of Justice have to sue them one by one or can they class action the eminent domain lawsuit?
No. The Short Answer Eminent domain suits brought by the United States of America must be brought one by one against each property owner (or in the case of property owned by more than one person, against all of the people who own that particular parcel of property). The government cannot bring a class action lawsuit to exercise its power of eminent domain. Federal class action lawsuits are governed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 which exists to allow multiple plaintiffs to join in litigation in a simplified manner. But, when the United States of America brings a lawsuit to enforce its power of eminent domain, there is always one and only one plaintiff. Different agencies of the United States of America, for example, do not count as more than one party. The comments to this question indicate that there are a lot of misconceptions related to the basics of the eminent domain process above and beyond the narrow class action lawsuit question, so I address those below, because the short answer is somewhat misleading without an overarching understanding of the context of the question. The Eminent Domain Process The eminent domain issues involved in building a border wall is very similar to the situation involved when the government floods a valley by building a dam, or takes land to build a highway, or takes land to build a military base. Most of the land affected by a border wall (at least in Texas where much of it would be built) is privately owned. According to that link (from Fox News): Hundreds of property owners were sued just to build the existing chunks of wall. Some 400 relinquished properties ranging in size from a driveway to commercial lots and farms, costing the government at least $15 million, according to an AP review of land cases in 2012. Also notably, the border wall proposal was unpopular in most of the counties on or near the U.S. border with Mexico. The appropriate division in the Justice Department (with pre-litigation work often done by other federal agencies) is very adept at mass producing the eminent domain lawsuits necessary to acquire property in circumstances like these. There is a rather elaborate process involved: A regulatory process is conducted to determine that a project should be commenced is undertaken in a particular way in accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act. Unless Congress enacts a project specific waiver, an environmental impact statement must be completed by the agency in connection with this step, as required by the National Environmental Policy Act. Also, note that in a very big multi-billion dollar, thousand mile long project, like the proposed border wall, the project would probably be broken up into a number of independent sub-projects, each managed independently by different senior bureaucrats at this point. For example, the Rio Grande River border wall might be one project, while the New Mexico border might be another, and the Arizona border a third, and the California border a forth. Similarly, the New Mexico border project, for example, might be further broken down into one project to build the actual wall and another to build a frontage road alongside it and a third to set up a power grid to run the cameras and spotlights along the wall. Engineers and architects then determine exactly what property will be affected in what manner by each project in what ways, once the agency decides to go forward with a project in a particular way. Some property must be taken completely, but sometimes only temporary use of property, or an easement or a setback is required, rather than complete ownership of the affected property. Simultaneously with this step, estimators would use the plans to refine the original budget for the project into detailed and more accurate line items, some of which would be bid to government contractors and some of which (like eminent domain costs) would be estimated more accurately by a senior bureaucrat in the appropriate agency. If the existing appropriation for the project is insufficient to pay for the project in light of the more accurate cost projections (e.g. if Congress underestimated the cost of acquiring land), then the agency has to go back to Congress and ask for a supplemental appropriation bill to cover the unexpected cost overrun. Once the project is approved and precise plans have been drawn up, a team of title technicians (the colloquial term is "land men"), determines which parcels of real property are affected by the project and how owns them based upon the plans prepared by the engineers and architects and a review of county real property records in each affected county. A team of appraisers then determines how much the government is willing to pay for each parcel (including a premium above the true fair market value that could be proven in a trial that is designed to avoid the expense of eminent domain litigation). They use methods similar to those of a county assessor, and their adherence to recognized appraisal standards will be critical to the ability of the government to have a court determine that this is the correct amount of just compensation for the property if it ends up being litigated. A team of negotiators then contacts the affected property owners to offer the price determined by the appraisers, and to negotiate in a manner consistent with the overall needs of the project to resolve issues. For example, negotiators would typically have the power to reach an agreement to completely purchase property even when the engineers think that only an easement across the property is necessary, if this will facilitate a voluntarily sale of the property by the owner at a price that the agency is willing to pay in light of the likely price and litigation costs that would be determined in an eminent domain proceeding. After a reasonable period of time has elapsed with respect to a parcel during which the parties can negotiate, the acquisition of property that owners will not sell voluntarily will be referred to a Justice Department lawyer who will commence an eminent domain lawsuit to acquire that property. Usually, the legal documents in these cases are mass produced from a form prepared by a Justice Department lawyer for the project in question (which sets forth the legal authority for condemnation that is common to all eminent domain cases on the project) that requires a Justice Department paralegal to insert the property description and last best offer made and the owners of the property. Once the paralegal fills in the form for each property, the lawsuits are then given a cursory review by the Justice Department lawyer. If the Justice Department lawyer approves the final drafts, then the lawsuits are filed with the appropriate federal district court (one with jurisdiction over the land in question), and legal process is served upon each property owner in the manner provided by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and relevant statutes. If a property owner does not respond to the lawsuit, the government wins by default. If an answer is filed, and no post-filing settlement is reached, the government will then usually ask for an immediate possession hearing at which it establishes that it has a right to seize the property leaving the just compensation as the only outstanding issue and having the court set a bond for the compensation amount pending final determination of just compensation. At that point the government can begin work on the property. Often months after the project is built, final compensation is determined in the eminent domain lawsuit and it is paid to the owners in proportion to their ownership percentage or as a check payable jointly to all of them. A typical project to build a a few dozen miles of new highway or an urban rail line will involve acquisition of many hundreds of parcels of property giving rise to scores of eminent domain lawsuits that have to move forward before the project is "shovel ready". This can take months or years, although it is typically done on a rolling basis, so that some part of the project can get going while red tape to get the rest of the project in place with legal authorization to begin work is still in process. A border wall project would probably involve thousands of lawsuits just to handle the cases where a voluntary sale couldn't be negotiated. As a lawyer who sometimes helps people defend eminent domain proceedings with respect to their property, I usually get involved at step 5 or step 6 of this process. Inverse Condemnation Compared In contrast, an "inverse condemnation" action can be brought as a class action. An inverse condemnation action happens when the government simply takes property without due process or providing just compensation, even though it is required to provide due process and just compensation by the 5th Amendment to the United States Constitution, and the person from whom the property was taken sues to invalidate that action or obtain just compensation for it. If many similarly situated people are harmed by the government taking their property without an eminent domain proceeding, causing them all to be potential plaintiffs, they may bring a class action to seek a remedy. If the government is acting lawfully, however, an inverse condemnation lawsuit will never have to be brought, because the "due process" part of the 5th Amendment requires that a lawsuit be brought before the property is taken using the power of eminent domain. It is not lawful for the United States to simply take property and see if the property owner will complain after the fact. If any agency were to do this on a routine basis, it would be appropriate to bring a federal lawsuit seeking injunctive or declaratory relief to force this agency to change its policy going forward, in addition to forcing it to provide a remedy in cases where it had already seized property without first bringing an eminent domain lawsuit.
First, the practical answer is no: even if they ordered the President to go to war, the President can just refuse. The military is generally in the habit of listening to orders from the President, particularly if the question is "do we or do we not go to war;" the courts do not have the power to command the armed forces. They could try issuing an injunction instructing the military to go to war, but the injunction would be ignored. They could try holding people in contempt, but the President is in charge of almost all federal law enforcement (and can pardon criminal contempt), so that's not going to work. And even if the President could be punished for contempt, if he thinks intervening will result in the annihilation of the human race in a thermonuclear war, he will not issue the orders. But that's assuming the courts would even try to intervene. They wouldn't. Courts don't generally want to issue orders that they know will be ignored. In this case, the relief being sought (i.e. an order to do something) is a kind of relief that is up to the discretion of the court. So even if a court would be legally justified in issuing that order, they have an easy out. (For damages claims, Congress can just refuse to appropriate any money to satisfy them; no federal money can be spent unless Congress appropriates it). There's an even earlier out, though. Courts are not political branches of government; one of the basic rules of jurisprudence is that courts should not get involved in deciding something that's really up to the elected branches. Baker v. Carr had a list of factors to consider: a textually demonstrable constitutional commitment of the issue to a coordinate political department; a lack of judicially discoverable and manageable standards for resolving it; the impossibility of deciding without an initial policy determination of a kind clearly for nonjudicial discretion; the impossibility of a court's undertaking independent resolution without expressing lack of the respect due coordinate branches of government; an unusual need for unquestioning adherence to a political decision already made; the potentiality of embarrassment from multifarious pronouncements by various departments on one question. Foreign relations in general is very often grounds for deference, as is military strategy. Courts are utterly unqualified to determine proper diplomatic or military actions to take, or to evaluate whether the President's actions were enough to meet the requirement of "do what's necessary to restore security;" foreign policy is a case where a country needs a unified face (because other countries aren't particularly willing to deal with US internal politics), and where the courts could easily screw up what the government is doing; and whether to send Americans to war is a question that is clearly a matter for those accountable to the people. So, federal courts cannot analyze this question to decide whether or not the government has done anything wrong; it's for the other two branches to decide.
As many parties as have standing. The First Amendment protects the right to petition for redress of grievances, so any limitation on that right would be highly disfavored. When there's a rush of cases like this, though, there are a few option for dealing with them. For instance, a plaintiff may seek class certification, permitting him to stand in for similarly situated parties so they don't need to litigate themselves, or a court may consolidate the cases if they are sufficiently similar.
In the vast majority of jurisdictions, unpaid property taxes give rise to a lien that runs with the land. So, the new owners have an "in rem" responsibility to pay those taxes that can be collected against them solely by foreclosing on the tax lien and seizing the property if the tax isn't paid. Whether the previous owners also have any responsibility for the unpaid property taxes depends on state law which varies and on the terms of the real estate purchase and sale contract and deed in the transaction. Where I live, the real estate buyer is protected against a surprise tax bill once the sale is done in two main ways. First, the title company provides insurance against unpaid real estate taxes and will deduct any potential unpaid real estate taxes from the funds provided to the seller at closing unless the country treasurer has verified in writing to them that there are no real estate tax arrears for that parcel of property. Second, if the property is conveyed by a warranty deed that does not exclude a warranty that there are no property tax liens in existence for the relevant years, then the buyer has a right to sue the seller for the unpaid back taxes if that warranty turns out not to be true. Almost all sales of real property for full consideration between unrelated parties are carried out by a general warranty deed of this type that doesn't exclude property tax liens except for the current calendar year. If there is no title company involved in the transaction and/or the property is not conveyed by a warranty deed (e.g. it is conveyed by a quitclaim deed), then you could still avoid this risk by checking with the county treasurer to see if any back property taxes are owed on the parcel being sold and getting a certification in writing from the county treasurer of that fact, before agreeing to close on the sale. The title insurance company, or you, if there is no title insurance company, should also check the county real estate records normally maintained by a county clerk or recorder, to confirm that the seller really owns the property sold and that it has not been sold in a tax sale which would eliminate the back tax obligation but which would also mean that the seller no longer owns the property.
The police officers themselves are covered by Qualified Immunity - to put it briefly, a government official acting in their official capacity in a discretionary act (as in, they have some discretion in whether/how they carry out the act) is immune from suit so long as they pay reasonable deference to relevant law. In the case of the police, so long as the search or seizure itself is reasonable (either because there is a warrant, or because they had probable cause), they can take appropriately destructive measures to carry out their duty. Even if the search or seizure is later found to have been unreasonable, an officer may still have Qualified Immunity unless their action violated "clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which reasonable person would have known" (Harlow v. Fitzgerald). However, a search/seizure doesn't give the police license for arbitrary destruction, whatever they do has to be reasonably pursuant to the legal search/seizure. For example, if a suspect is barricaded in a house with a gun, they can knock down doors, windows and walls to apprehend them. On the other hand, that does not mean the officers can then break open safes to try and find evidence - once their probable cause for the entry is fulfilled (apprehending the suspect), they need to get a warrant to do more than a plain sight search of the house. Warrants will specify what items are being searched for, so even with a warrant the police have to take reasonable measures to carry it out - an example of an unreasonable measure would be to tear into walls in order to try and find a stolen bicycle. On the other hand, tearing into walls could be justified if their warrant included searching for drugs from a dealer, where it is not uncommon to hide them in the walls. States and the Federal Government enjoy Sovereign Immunity from suits in most cases. There are some exceptions, but none would apply in this case so long as the general policy of the police department was not illegal or unconstitutional. However, county and city governments do not enjoy Sovereign Immunity and state governments and the Federal Government often allow suits against them for negligence from their actors, so someone injured by unreasonable police action can usually try to recover damages from the officer's department.
Consult a lawyer These issues are quite common and their impact depends on your jurisdiction (usually local governments handle this) and the attitude of your potential lenders/buyers. In most cases, local governments have the power, in extremis, of ordering the demolition of unpermitted work. However, this is normally done only when the work is irredeemably unsafe or adversely affects the amenity of neighbours. More common might be an order to make good any defective work, possibly to current rather than historical codes after which they will retroactively grant the permissions. Some lenders will refuse to lend if there are unpermitted works. Others will only lend against the unimproved land value less the cost of demolition. The same is true of insurers. As for buyers, well, its making you stop and think, isn't it? Common solutions are to make your offer contingent on the current owner cleaning all this up before you close or offering less to cover the risks you are assuming. This may cause you to miss the property but that's the risk you run.
Yes. You can file a police report. You can also sue for cost of repairing any damaged property.
Yes. The Russian owned party to the contract can be sued. The remedies would be those available under the contract, which may or may not be futile to pursue, which almost certainly specify the court to which disputes should be brought. I have no access to the contracts and can't read the relevant languages anyway, however, so I can't tell you what they say about this point. In all likelihood, a Russian court would not rule in favor of Poland or Bulgaria on this score, and would not order Russia to restart supplying natural gas to them (perhaps on the theory that national security and foreign affairs decisions are involved), and no other court would have the practicable ability to cause Russia to reopen its natural gas pipelines. So, if they prevailed, the Court would have to fashion some other remedy (e.g. seizing Russian assets sufficiently associated with the contractually bound party over which they can acquire jurisdiction). If there is a third-party guarantor of the contract, collection could be feasible. If not, it would be much more challenging.