Rehearing Denied in PennEast Pipeline Eminent Domain Case
The Third Circuit has denied a request to have an en banc panel reconsider a decision disallowing use of eminent domain to acquire properties belonging to the state of New Jersey along the PennEast pipeline's route.
November 05, 2019 at 01:53 PM
4 minute read
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has denied a request to have an en banc panel reconsider a decision disallowing use of eminent domain to acquire properties belonging to the state of New Jersey along the PennEast pipeline's route.
In September, a Third Circuit panel reversed approval of PennEast Pipeline Co.'s orders of condemnation and immediate access to 42 properties, finding that condemnation powers granted to private pipeline builders under the Natural Gas Act do not permit them to take land owned by the state, which are immune from federal lawsuits by private parties under the 11th Amendment.
"We will not hesitate to stand up to private companies when their actions violate the law—or, in this case, the U.S. Constitution," New Jersey Attorney General Gurbir S. Grewal said in a statement Tuesday. "From the very beginning, we have made clear that the Eleventh Amendment prohibits private pipeline companies like PennEast from condemning state properties for private use, and we're pleased that the Third Circuit agreed with our position. The Third Circuit's decision not to rehear this case is great news for New Jersey and the environment."
James Graziano of Archer & Greiner in Haddonfield represents PennEast. A company spokesman said, "The PennEast member companies remain committed to the Project, and PennEast is evaluating all of its options in light of this recent development."
The Third Circuit previously rejected PennEast's argument that the Natural Gas Act delegates to pipeline builders the federal government's exemption to a state's sovereign immunity. It's unclear whether the federal government can delegate its power to override a state's 11th Amendment immunity, the appeals court said, but it declined to answer that question because "nothing in the text of the NGA suggests that Congress intended the statute to have such a result."
"PennEast's condemnation suits are thus barred by the state's Eleventh Amendment immunity," the appeals court said.
The 115-mile PennEast Pipeline, undertaken by a coalition of private energy companies, is slated to run from near Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania, an area with extensive gas reserves, across the Delaware River near Frenchtown, to Pennington, north of Trenton.
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission gave its approval to the project in January 2018, issuing a certificate of public convenience and necessity. That decision was appealed by various parties, including the state of New Jersey, at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. That appeal is still pending.
After receiving FERC's approval, PennEast filed condemnation petitions in New Jersey for 131 properties, including 42 parcels in which the state has an interest. In many of those properties, the state holds an easement requiring the land be preserved for recreational, agricultural or conservation purposes.
Last last year, U.S. District Judge Brian Martinotti of the District of New Jersey gave PennEast the green light to condemn the state-owned properties, rejecting New Jersey's assertion of immunity. Martinotti found that because "the NGA expressly allows any holder of a certificate of public convenience and necessity" to condemn property, PennEast could do so for properties along the planned pipeline, even if owned by the state. The ruling said the U.S. Marshals could investigate, arrest, imprison or bring to court any property owner who violated the court's order.
The state was granted an appeal and a stay of construction of the pipeline.
In the reversal in September, Judges Kent Jordan, Stephanos Bibas and Richard Nygaard of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held it was essential to distinguish between the two powers at issue in the case—the federal government's eminent domain power and its exemption from 11th Amendment immunity. Jordan, writing for the court, stated that the federal government can condemn state-owned land in federal court because it enjoys a special exemption from the 11th Amendment.
"Thus, the federal government's ability to condemn state land—what PennEast contends it is entitled to do by being vested with the federal government's eminent domain power—is, in fact, the function of two separate powers: the government's eminent domain power and its exemption from Eleventh Amendment immunity. A delegation of the former must not be confused for, or conflated with, a delegation of the latter," Jordan wrote.
"A private party is not endowed with all the rights of the United States by virtue of a delegation of the government's power of eminent domain," Jordan wrote, and PennEast "fails to adequately grapple with the constitutional impediment to allowing a private business to condemn state land: namely, Eleventh Amendment immunity."
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllTrending Stories
- 1Friday Newspaper
- 2Judge Denies Sean Combs Third Bail Bid, Citing Community Safety
- 3Republican FTC Commissioner: 'The Time for Rulemaking by the Biden-Harris FTC Is Over'
- 4NY Appellate Panel Cites Student's Disciplinary History While Sending Negligence Claim Against School District to Trial
- 5A Meta DIG and Its Nvidia Implications
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250