The Supreme Court ruled 5-4

[bluedevil4]

I saw this on facebook and I don't know how to verify it
The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that the developers of the $1 billion PennEast natural gas pipeline can seize New Jersey land to build the project…

PennEast’s 116-mile pipeline would transport as much as 1 billion cubic feet of natural gas per day from northern Pennsylvania to New Jersey. drill baby drill!

[JohnSJ]

1. yup, that was ruled on back in June

https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/supreme-court-clears-penneast-pipeline-to-sue-for-land-rights

[bluedevil4]

2. I don't know why

I thought it just happened. I feel silly now

[elleng]

4. 1 month old.

[femmedem]

5. No need to feel silly. There's been a lot of news and it's easy to miss something like this.

I didn't know about it either.

The 5/4 split is interesting:

From Scotusblog: "Justices Stephen Breyer, Samuel Alito, Sonia Sotomayor and Brett Kavanaugh joined Roberts’ majority opinion. Justice Neil Gorsuch filed a dissent that was joined by Justice Clarence Thomas. Justice Amy Coney Barrett filed a separate dissent that was joined by Thomas, Gorsuch and Justice Elena Kagan."

More: https://www.scotusblog.com/2021/06/divided-court-says-new-jersey-cant-stop-natural-gas-pipeline/

[Igel]

11. Don't feel silly.

I've seen things and thought them recent when they'd happened a few years before.

By the same token, I've seen people claim that things have never happened or happened recently and I can point to a WaPo article from years back saying the opposite.

The trick is to say, "Oh, I was wrong," be corrected, shrug your shoulders, and move on. To err is human. (Or, as people like to say these days, "to air is human.&quot

[bluedevil4]

14. Lol 😉 loved your

Last paragraph because it’s so true!

[elleng]

3. Supreme Court Rules Eminent Domain in Play as PennEast Pursues Major Natural Gas Pipeline Project

June 30, 2021

The U.S. Supreme Court has cleared a key roadblock from PennEast Pipeline Co.’s path toward finishing construction of a major natural gas pipeline in Pennsylvania and New Jersey.

The high court on Tuesday ruled that the PennEast joint venture may use federal eminent domain power to condemn and acquire 42 parcels in New Jersey to complete the 120-mile interstate pipeline project. The system would move 1 Bcf/d into New Jersey and parts of Pennsylvania.

The court, in a 5-4 opinion authored by Chief Justice John Roberts, rejected New Jersey’s challenge to allow a private company to use eminent domain to seize state-owned land.'>>>

https://www.naturalgasintel.com/supreme-court-rules-eminent-domain-in-play-as-penneast-pursues-major-natural-gas-pipeline-project/

[bluedevil4]

6. in reading that

it sounds like a private company could take my land

[elleng]

9. It could, it's for Eminent Domain, often controversial.

'the right of a government or its agent to expropriate private property for public use, with payment of compensation.'

[Igel]

12. Uh ... I think that's really a stretch.

The developer received a permit from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, and it argued that, under federal law, the permit includes the authority to take New Jersey to court so that it can acquire state-controlled property along the pipeline route.

Notice two things:

1. FERC issued a permit, and part of the permitting process is public commenting and due notification given to all sorts of people. If your property were under discussion, you'd be notified and comments requested.

2. It wasn't privately owned land, it was state-controlled property.

The majority opinion, with no separate concurring opinions noted (as far as I know), was

“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.”

So it's specific to natural gas activities, as supported by the feds, but only when it comes to state-owned lands. (Or, I suppose, "commonwealth" owned lands where the commonwealth was a formally admitted state; I'd suggest this probably wouldn't hold for Puerto Rico, since it's not a state.

I find this ruling deeply wrong, but then again I also thought and continue to think that Kelo was decided in an insane manner.

[bluedevil4]

13. Thank you

for taking the time to research that. I was upset to think that they took homes away from people. 🙂👍

[former9thward]

20. A stretch!

That is exactly what the infamous Kelo decision said was legal.

In 2005, the United States Supreme Court decided the landmark case of Kelo v. New London. In a 5-4 decision delivered by Justice Stevens, the Supreme Court ruled that the government’s seizure and transfer of private property to a private redevelopment company did not violate the 5th Amendment’s taking clause.


https://markweinsteinlaw.com/a-summary-of-the-kelo-decision-and-its-impact-on-eminent-domain-law/

[Blue_true]

18. I believe the central issue was the pipeline ran across several states.

That caused the issue to be a federal eminent domaine issue. In the majority opinion, Roberts held that when states agreed to become part of the Union, they ceded to federal eminent domaine under the Constitution, so states and public localities within those states have no eminent domaine over state or local public owned land when their right conflicts with the federal right.

In short, a private nor public company can take your private land via eminent domaine. They would be forced to offer you a minimum fair market price. My feeling is that if they really wanted you out of the way of a money making project, they would offer money that you would likely not refuse.

[Peppertoo]

7. Not the usual split

“ ROBERTS, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which BREYER, ALITO, SOTOMAYOR, and KAVANAUGH, JJ., joined. GORSUCH, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which THOMAS, J., joined. BARRETT, J., filed a dis- senting opinion, in which THOMAS, KAGAN, and GORSUCH, JJ., joined.”

[elleng]

10. VERY interesting split!

[Volaris]

15. Robert's, Breyer...and Sotomayor and Kavs.. means the letter of State Law was followed EXACTLY..

And if that happens to piss off the current State Govt, it means the Law should have been written better to begin with....

Is the ONLY takeaway I can glean here.

IANAL, and YMVV.

[Volaris]

16. I feel like this is gonna be some variation of the normal split now..

Thomas and Barrett, Kavs siding with Alito, Gorsuch going wherever he wants, Roberts, Kagen, Soto, and Breyers having themselves a LEGIT DEBATE about how this shit is actually SUPPOSED TO WORK IN A DEMOCRACY...

This court is gonna be about whoever can convince Roberts and Gorsuch that they're correct in their interpretation of the LETTER of the Law, and the rest is chaos.

[Blue_true]

19. Actually, I believe that Kavanaugh has sided with Roberts and the Liberals a

lot more than Gorsuch.

Barrett seems like a wild card so far, but she is likely waiting for Reproductive Rights rulings to show her hand.

[marble falls]

8. Don't like it, but I get it. Their argument is this pipeline is for the public good ...

... it still feels like a stretch over what the eminent domain was about. If this was done to build sewers or put in water lines is one thing. But to haul a corporation's natgas seems a little dirty. But some eastern states have condemned property to build commercial malls, and that I do not get at all.

[Sgent]

22. I don't see how its any different

than railroads which have had delegated eminent domain authority since the 1830's.

[marble falls]

23. And railroads don't today have a fraction of the track and right of way they owned even ...

... in the late forties. A lot of the property was just abandoned or donated to park districts.

How does any pipeline at all even begin to revert to public use at any point?

[Blue_true]

17. Roberts, Breyer, Alito, Sotomayor, Kavanaugh

allowed the property seizure. Thomas, Kagan, Gorsuch and Barrett opposed it.

If I remember correctly, Thomas has always been an opponent of eminent domaine at any level (federal, state, local).

[Polybius]

21. It was a horrible ruling

I can't believe Breyer and Sotomayor were with the majority. RGB never would have ben for this (not that it would have mattered, since her replacement cast the right vote this time).