Contact Person:

Chloe Marie Research Specialist

Phone:

Email:

cjm445@psu.edu

Case Law

The PennEast Pipeline-related cases

PennEast Pipeline Co., LLC v. A Permanent Easement for 1.92 Acres
(USDC New Jersey, No. 3:18-cv-01597)

PennEast Pipeline Company, LLC filed a complaint in condemnation under Section 7(h) of the Natural Gas Act (NGA) claiming the necessary rights-of-way and easements in property, including state-owned property, for the construction of the PennEast Pipeline after it failed to negotiate directly with landowners on the issue of compensation. PennEast also sought injunctive relief granting immediate access to property.

The U.S. District Court allowed PennEast to take private and state property in order to build the PennEast Pipeline and granted its request for injunctive relief for immediate access to property. The court found that FERC’s granting of a valid certificate of public convenience and necessity under the NGA gives companies the right to directly sue any state government for eminent domain purposes.

The State Defendants appealed the decision of the district court to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit (No. 19-1191).

The Third Circuit Court of Appeals vacated and remanded the case to the district court for further proceedings and held that PennEast is prevented from suing the State of New Jersey to obtain rights-of-way and easements in property by eminent domain in accordance with the 11th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (Third Circuit, No. 19-1191).

Respondent PennEast filed a petition for rehearing en banc (Third Circuit, No. 19-1191).  

The Third Circuit Court of Appeals denied PennEast’s petition for rehearing en banc (Third Circuit, No. 19-1191).

The U.S. District Court vacated its prior order dated December 2018 with respect to the property interests owned by the State of New Jersey. In addition, the court dismissed all claims filed against the State Defendants.

PennEast filed a petition for a writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court seeking to overturn the Third Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision that eminent domain could not be exercised on property in which a state has an interest (U.S. Sup. Ct. No. 19-1039)