Become part of the movement for unbiased, accessible election information. Donate today.

PennEast Pipeline Co. v. New Jersey

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Supreme Court of the United States
PennEast Pipeline Co. v. New Jersey
Term: 2020
Important Dates
Argued: April 28, 2021
Decided: June 29, 2021
Outcome
Reversed and remanded
Vote
5-4
Majority
Chief Justice John Roberts • Stephen Breyer • Samuel Alito • Sonia Sotomayor • Brett Kavanaugh
Dissenting
Clarence Thomas • Elena Kagan • Neil Gorsuch • Amy Coney Barrett

PennEast Pipeline Co. v. New Jersey is a case argued before the Supreme Court of the United States on April 28, 2021, during the court's October 2020-2021 term.

In a 5-4 ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit's judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings, holding that Section 717f(h) authorizes FERC certificate holders to condemn all necessary rights-of-way, whether owned by private parties or by states. Chief Justice John Roberts delivered the majority opinion of the court. Justice Neil Gorsuch filed a dissenting opinion, joined by Justice Clarence Thomas. Justice Amy Coney Barrett filed a dissenting opinion, joined by Justices Clarence Thomas, Elena Kagan, and Neil Gorsuch.[1] Click here for more information about the ruling.


HIGHLIGHTS
  • The case: The Natural Gas Act ("NGA") allows private gas companies to exercise the federal government’s power to take property by eminent domain if certain jurisdictional requirements are met. Natural gas company PennEast Pipeline Company ("PennEast") was scheduled to build a natural gas pipeline through part of New Jersey. PennEast obtained federal approval and sued for access to the properties under the NGA in federal district court. The State of New Jersey ("New Jersey") sought to dismiss PennEast's suits, arguing that PennEast did not satisfy the NGA's jurisdictional requirements and that the state held immunity from the suit under the Eleventh Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey allowed PennEast immediate access to the properties at issue. New Jersey appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit, which held that New Jersey was immune and vacated the district court's orders. Click here to learn more about the case's background.
  • The issues: The case concerned jurisdictional requirements of eminent domain under the Natural Gas Act.
  • The questions presented: “Whether the NGA delegates to FERC certificate holders [have] the authority to exercise the federal government’s eminent domain power to condemn land in which a state claims an interest.”[2]
  • The outcome: The U.S. Supreme Court reversed the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit's judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings.


    • The case came on a writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit. Click here to review the lower court's opinion.[3]

    Timeline

    The following timeline details key events in this case:

    • June 29, 2021: The U.S. Supreme Court reversed the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit's judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings.
    • April 28, 2021: The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument.
    • February 3, 2021: The U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear the case.
    • February 18, 2020: PennEast Pipeline Company appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
    • September 10, 2019: The United States Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit vacated the District of New Jersey's order related to New Jersey’s property interests and granted preliminary injunctive relief related to those interests. The court remanded the case for the claims against New Jersey to be dismissed.

    Background

    The Natural Gas Act ("NGA") allows private gas companies to exercise the federal government’s power to take property by eminent domain, so long as specific jurisdictional requirements are met.[3] During the pendency of the litigation, PennEast Pipeline Company ("PennEast") was scheduled to build a natural gas pipeline through Pennsylvania and New Jersey. PennEast obtained federal approval and sued for access to properties along the pipeline route under the NGA. The State of New Jersey ("New Jersey") sought to dismiss PennEast's suits citing a lack of jurisdiction under the Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution, while also arguing that PennEast did not satisfy the NGA's jurisdictional requirements. According to the Eleventh Amendment, states hold sovereign immunity from lawsuits brought by private parties in federal court. The U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey held that PennEast's suits were not barred by New Jersey's immunity, and allowed immediate access to the properties at issue. New Jersey appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit.[3]

    On appeal, the 3rd Circuit vacated the District of New Jersey's ruling, holding that New Jersey did have Eleventh Amendment immunity to PennEast's suit, and therefore PennEast's suit for access under the NGA was barred. The case was remanded to the district court for the dismissal of any claims against New Jersey.[3] PennEast appealed the ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court.

    Questions presented

    The petitioner presented the following questions to the court:[2]

    Questions presented:
    “ 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.

    [4]

    		”

    Oral argument

    Audio

    Audio of oral argument:[5]



    Transcript

    Transcript of oral argument:[6]

    Outcome

    In a 5-4 ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit's judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings, holding that Section 717f(h) authorizes FERC certificate holders to condemn all necessary rights-of-way, whether owned by private parties or by states. Chief Justice John Roberts delivered the majority opinion of the court. Justice Neil Gorsuch filed a dissenting opinion, joined by Justice Clarence Thomas. Justice Amy Coney Barrett filed a dissenting opinion, joined by Justices Clarence Thomas, Elena Kagan, and Neil Gorsuch.[1]

    Opinion

    In the court's majority opinion, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote:[1]

    “ Eminent domain is the power of the government to take property for public use without the consent of the owner. It can be exercised either by public officials or by private parties to whom the power has been delegated. And it can be exercised either through the initiation of legal proceedings or simply by taking possession up front, with compensation to follow. Since the founding, the United States has used its eminent domain authority to build a variety of infrastructure projects. It has done so on its own and through private delegatees, and it has relied on legal proceedings and upfront takings. It has also used its power against both private property and property owned by the States.


    This case involves one of the ways the federal eminent domain power can be exercised: through legal proceedings initiated by private delegatees against state-owned property. Specifically, we are asked to decide whether the Federal Government can constitutionally confer on pipeline companies the authority to condemn necessary rights-of-way in which a State has an interest. We hold that it can.

    Although nonconsenting States are generally immune from suit, they surrendered their immunity from the exercise of the federal eminent domain power when they ratified the Constitution. That power carries with it the ability to condemn property in court. Because the Natural Gas Act delegates the federal eminent domain power to private parties, those parties can initiate condemnation proceedings, including against state-owned property.

    ... When the Framers met in Philadelphia in the summer of 1787, they sought to create a cohesive national sovereign in response to the failings of the Articles of Confederation. Over the course of the Nation’s history, the Federal Government and its delegatees have exercised the eminent domain power to give effect to that vision, connecting our country through turnpikes, bridges, and railroads—and more recently pipelines, telecommunications infrastructure, and electric transmission facilities. And we have repeatedly upheld these exercises of the federal eminent domain power—whether by the Government or a private corporation, whether through an upfront taking or a direct condemnation proceeding, and whether against private property or state-owned land.

    The NGA fits well within this tradition. From humble beginnings in central Indiana, the Nation’s interstate pipeline system has grown to span hundreds of thousands of miles. This development was made possible by the enactment of §717f(h) in 1947. By its terms, §717f(h) authorizes FERC certificate holders to condemn all necessary rights-of-way, whether owned by private parties or States. Such condemnation actions do not offend state sovereignty, because the States consented at the founding to the exercise of the federal eminent domain power, whether by public officials or private delegatees. Because the Third Circuit reached a contrary conclusion, we reverse the judgment below and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.[4]

    		”
    —Chief Justice John Roberts

    Dissenting opinion

    Justice Gorsuch

    Justice Neil Gorsuch filed a dissenting opinion, joined by Justice Clarence Thomas.

    In his dissent, Justice Gorsuch wrote:[1]

    “ I join JUSTICE BARRETT’s dissenting opinion in full, which ably explains why this case implicates New Jersey’s structural immunity and how New Jersey never waived that immunity in the summer months of 1787. I write only to address one recurring source of confusion in this area and which the Court does not address. In the same breath, the district court said an Eleventh Amendment objection “is a challenge to a district court’s subject matter jurisdiction” and yet “it does not implicate federal subject matter jurisdiction.” App. to Pet. for Cert. 64–65. Both statements cannot be true. This Court, it seems, has contributed to the confusion. It has “sometimes referred to the States’ immunity from suit as ‘Eleventh Amendment immunity.’” Alden v. Maine, 527 U. S. 706, 713 (1999); see also, e.g., ante, at 20. Though it might be a “convenient shorthand,” the phrase is “a misnomer.” Alden, 527 U.S., at 713. States have two distinct federal-law immunities from suit.


    ... If that’s all true, then a federal court “shall not” entertain this suit. The Eleventh Amendment’s text, no less than the Constitution’s structure, may bar it. This Court, understandably, does not address that issue today because the parties have not addressed it themselves and “there is no mandatory ‘sequencing of jurisdictional issues.’” Sinochem Int’l Co. v. Malaysia Int’l Shipping Corp., 549 U.S. 422, 431 (2007). The lower courts, however, have an obligation to consider this issue on remand before proceeding to the merits. See Steel Co. v. Citizens for Better Environment, 523 U.S. 83, 94–95, 101 (1998).[4]

    		”
    —Justice Neil Gorsuch

    Justice Barrett

    Justice Amy Coney Barrett filed a dissenting opinion, joined by Justices Clarence Thomas, Elena Kagan, and Neil Gorsuch.

    In her dissent, Justice Barrett wrote:[1]

    “ A straightforward application of our precedent resolves this case. Congress passed the Natural Gas Act in reliance on its power to regulate interstate commerce, and we have repeatedly held that the Commerce Clause does not permit Congress to strip the States of their sovereign immunity. Recognizing that barrier, the Court insists that eminent domain is a special case. New Jersey has no sovereign immunity to assert, it says, because the States surrendered to private condemnation suits in the plan of the Convention. This argument has no textual, structural, or historical support. Because there is no reason to treat private condemnation suits differently from any other cause of action created pursuant to the Commerce Clause, I respectfully dissent.[4] ”
    —Justice Amy Coney Barrett

    Text of the opinion

    Read the full opinion here.

    October term 2020-2021

    See also: Supreme Court cases, October term 2020-2021

    The Supreme Court began hearing cases for the term on October 5, 2020. The court's yearly term begins on the first Monday in October and lasts until the first Monday in October the following year. The court generally releases the majority of its decisions in mid-June.[7]

    The court issued 67 opinions during its 2020-2021 term. Two cases were decided in one consolidated opinion. Ten cases were decided without argument. Click here for more information on the court's opinions.

    The court agreed to hear 62 cases during its 2020-2021 term. Of those, 12 were originally scheduled for the 2019-2020 term but were delayed due to the coronavirus pandemic. Five cases were removed from the argument calendar.


    See also

    External links

    Footnotes

    1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 U.S. Supreme Court, PennEast Pipeline Co. v. New Jersey, decided June 29, 2021
    2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 Supreme Court of the United States, "19-1039 PENNEAST PIPELINE CO., LLC V. NEW JERSEY: Questions presented," accessed February 3, 2021
    3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 United States Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit, In re Penneast Pipeline Co., decided September 10, 2019
    4. ↑ 4.0 4.1 4.2 4.3 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
    5. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Oral Argument - Audio," accessed April 28, 2021
    6. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Oral Argument - Transcript," accessed April 28, 2021
    7. ↑ SupremeCourt.gov, "A Brief Overview of the Supreme Court," accessed April 20, 2015
    Retrieved from "https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=PennEast_Pipeline_Co._v._New_Jersey&oldid=9615936"