Supreme Court rules that oil company can seize land in New Jersey for pipeline

[NewYorkExpress]

https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/560709-supreme-court-rules-that-pipeline-can-seize-land-from-new-jersey

The Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that the PennEast pipeline can seize land from the state of New Jersey for its construction, a win for the natural gas vessel.

The 5-4 decision wasn’t split along ideological lines in the case that pitted fossil fuel interests against states’ rights.

The majority opinion, penned by Chief Justice John Roberts and joined by Justices Stephen Breyer, Samuel Alito, Sonia Sotomayor and Brett Kavanaugh, argued that the federal government can deputize private entities like the PennEast Pipeline Company to seize land under the federal government’s eminent domain rights.


The five justices rejected New Jersey’s argument that the pipeline company taking its land violated its sovereign immunity protecting it from lawsuits, including property condemnation suits, and argued that the state gave up its ability to evade eminent domain by ratifying the Constitution.

“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,” Roberts wrote.

“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,” he added.

The four dissenting justices, in an opinion written by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, argued that permitting the company to take the state’s land through eminent domain violates court precedent which has determined that the Constitution doesn’t allow for Congress to interfere with states’ sovereign immunity.

“Congress cannot circumvent state sovereign immunity’s limitations on the judicial power through its Article I powers,” Barrett wrote. “Thus, even in areas where Article I grants it ‘complete lawmaking authority,’ Congress lacks a tool that it could otherwise use to implement its power: ‘authorization of suits by private parties against unconsenting States.’”

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I'm generally pro-pipeline, but this appears to be a bad decision.  It clearly is contradicted by Article I Section 8 Clause 17, which specifies that Congress shall have the power  "to exercise ... Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings".

Unless New Jersey gives its consent, the Federal government has no power to exercise eminent domain within the States. Now, it is possible that New Jersey has unintentionally given prior consent, but absent that, this is a bad decision in my opinion.

[brucejoel99]

Both Kagan & Gorsuch joining the dissent should tell you something & it should do so relatively loudly.

[Benjamin Frank]

Interesting ruling.  I'm not sure if this is the case in the United States, but I know in Canada under Common Law (and likely in the U.K at least as well, a private company can expropriate privately owned land if minerals and probably other resources are found on (under) that land.

I don't particularly like that, and its another instance where common law favors wealthy/powerful interests, but it is common law and it would be up to legislators to change that law, (or the Supreme Court to alter precedent I suppose.)

In this case, the U.S federal government has essentially deputized private companies to provide national infrastructure, even if this is a case where the private company personally benefits from that infrastructure and federal law overrules state law.

The difference in the ruling seems to stem from the narrow technical argument of state's rights or 'sovereign immunity' as is described here and if the state has sovereign immunity here, then the federal override is null (I guess ultra vires.)  

Of course, if 'state's rights' were a general case, then no federal law would override state law.

[Donerail]

Unless New Jersey gives its consent, the Federal government has no power to exercise eminent domain within the States. Now, it is possible that New Jersey has unintentionally given prior consent, but absent that, this is a bad decision in my opinion.

That hasn't been the law for around a century and a half. Criticize the decision, sure, but you can't fault the justices for failing to use this case to dramatically alter federal eminent domain law by reviving an interpretation that is dead dead dead.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Unless New Jersey gives its consent, the Federal government has no power to exercise eminent domain within the States. Now, it is possible that New Jersey has unintentionally given prior consent, but absent that, this is a bad decision in my opinion.

That hasn't been the law for around a century and a half. Criticize the decision, sure, but you can't fault the justices for failing to use this case to dramatically alter federal eminent domain law by reviving an interpretation that is dead dead dead.

If you've ever read any of my posts criticizing the Court's Eighth Amendment jurisprudence, you should realize my opinions about the Court seldom respect stare decisis.