ANSWER: The best answer is (b). This fact pattern is based upon the Supreme Court's decision in Fletcher v. Peck. On similar facts, the Court held that a state could not pass a law nullifying land transfers made under a law similar to the one here. The Contracts Clause provides that no state shall pass a law impairing the obligation of contracts. Voiding all of the transactions made under the 2001 would have the effect of impairing the contracts of those who lawfully purchased the land from the initial developer, which is not permitted. Answer (a) is not the best choice. In Martin v. Hunter's Lessee, the Supreme Court established that the power of judicial review extends to state court decisions, where a party alleges that a state law or state court decision violates the federal Constitution. Answer (c) is not the best choice. The 2001 law was probably unconstitutional. However, that law has since been repealed, so it is not really necessary for the Court to determine its validity. The issue here is whether the state legislature had the authority to invalidate existing land sale contracts, and it did not. Answer (d) is not the best choice, although it presents a statement that is technically correct. The case here challenges the 2004 law that voided the sale of the land to Parker. The best choice will be the one that addresses the 2004 law.