In 1996, a practicing lawyer from Colorado was disbarred. In 2011, he brought a $5 million suit against the U.S. government, claiming that the revocation of his license to practice law constituted a governmental taking, and that he was entitled to just compensation. The plaintiff argued that under the Tucker Act, the revocation amounted to the taking of public property. In the end, the court threw out the case because of the six-year statute of limitations. However, the court had an alternative explanation it could have used, had the case been within the six-year limit. According to the court, the Fifth Amendment does not mandate the payment of money as compensation. Had the case not been barred because of time, could the plaintiff have sought compensation other than monetary payment? Why or why not? Smith v. United States, 2012 U.S. Claims (Fed. Cl. May 30, 2012).