Term: 2020
Docket: 19-1039
Penneast Pipeline Co. v. New Jersey
- Pro
19-1039 PENNEAST PIPELINE CO., LLC V. NEW JERSEY DECISION BELOW: 938 F.3d 96 ORDER OF FEBRUARY 3, 2021: IN ADDITION TO THE QUESTION PRESENTED BY THE PETITION, THE PARTIES ARE DIRECTED TO BRIEF AND ARGUE THE FOLLOWING QUESTION: DID THE COURT OF APPEALS PROPERLY EXERCISE JURISDICTION OVER THIS CASE? THE CASE WILL BE SET FOR ARGUMENT IN THE APRIL 2021 ARGUMENT SESSION. CERT. GRANTED 2/3/2021 QUESTION PRESENTED: The Natural Gas Act authorizes a private gas company to exercise the federal government's power of eminent domain to secure necessary rights-of-way for the construction of an interstate pipeline if FERC grants the company a certificate of public convenience and necessity for the project. 15 U.S.C. §717f(h). This Court has long recognized that the federal eminent domain power may be exercised against state- owned property. See, e.g., Kohl v. United States, 91 U.S. 367 (1875). Consistent with that rule, for the better part of a century, certificate holders have invoked §717f(h) to secure rights-of-way across private- and state- owned property alike. Yet the decision below, issued without the benefit of the federal government's views, deemed this long- settled understanding mistaken and held that the federal eminent domain power in §717f(h) cannot be exercised by certificate holders as to property in which a state has an interest. In reaching that conclusion, the Third Circuit conceded that its decision "may disrupt how the natural gas industry, which has used the NGA to construct interstate pipelines over State-owned land for the past eighty years, operates:" App.30. FERC has since confirmed that the Third Circuit's interpretation of §717f(h) is mistaken, but that the court's prediction about the dire consequences is correct. The question presented is: Whether the NGA delegates to FERC certificate holders the authority to exercise the federal government's eminent domain power to condemn land in which a state claims an interest. LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 19-1191, 19-1232
The U.S. Supreme Court case PennEast Pipeline Co. v. New Jersey, 2020, revolved around the issue of eminent domain and state sovereignty rights under the Eleventh Amendment. The PennEast Pipeline Company sought to construct a natural gas pipeline across Pennsylvania and New Jersey but faced opposition from New Jersey which owned some of the land needed for this project. The company sued in federal court to exercise its right of eminent domain granted by the Natural Gas Act (NGA). However, New Jersey argued that it was immune from such suits under the Eleventh Amendment's sovereign immunity clause. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of PennEast Pipeline Company with a majority decision stating that Congress had delegated its own power to take property through eminent domain to private companies like PennEast when it passed NGA; therefore these companies could sue states over land disputes without violating their sovereign immunity as protected by Eleventh Amendment.
In the dissenting opinion for PennEast Pipeline Co. v. New Jersey, Justice Barrett argued that the majority's decision to allow a private company to sue a state in federal court under eminent domain contradicted historical precedent and threatened states' sovereign immunity. She contended that at the time of ratification of the Constitution, no such practice existed where private parties could initiate legal proceedings against non-consenting states in federal courts. The dissent also pointed out that there was no clear evidence showing Congress intended to abrogate this fundamental aspect of state sovereignty when it passed Natural Gas Act (NGA). Furthermore, she noted that allowing such lawsuits would open up states to suits by foreign or out-of-state corporations without their consent which is contrary to principles of comity among co-equal sovereigns within our federation.
