The State of Euphoria has a large native population. In 2001, the legislature passed a law, the Euphoric Land Act, which allowed the state to seize all lands from the native people and declare it property of the state. Under the Euphoric Land Act, people could apply to the legislature for ownership of the land, and the legislature had the discretion to award the land to certain individuals. During 2002, most of the seized land was awarded to individuals who had given large bribes to various members of the Euphoria legislature. In 2004, the people of Euphoria lodged their objection by voting out every incumbent who was up for re-election. In 2004, the legislature repealed the Euphoric Land Act. In 2003, Parker purchased a tract of land from the developer who received it under the land act. In 2004, he agreed to sell the land to Dewey. After the legislature repealed the law and voided all transactions under it. Dewey refused to purchase the property, claiming that Parker did not have good title to the land. Parker sues in federal court to enforce the contract. Which of the following statements is most accurate?

1. The case will be dismissed, because a federal court has no authority to nullify a state law.
2. Parker will prevail, because the 2004 law unconstitutionally impairs his rights under the Contracts Clause.
3. Dewey will prevail, because the 2001 law is unconstitutional and therefore, Parker does not really own the land
4. The case will be dismissed as moot, because the 2001 law was probably unconstitutional, but it has since been repealed.