0.12 Acres of Land, More or Less, in Washington County, Maryland, et al. v. Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC

In PennEast Pipeline Co. v. New Jersey, 141 S. Ct. 1289 (2021), the respondent State claimed sovereign immunity from a pipeline company’s exercise of federally delegated eminent domain power under the Natural Gas Act, 15 U.S.C. § 717f(h). Ruling for the company, this Court held that “the States consented in the plan of the Convention to the exercise of federal eminent domain power, including in condemnation proceedings brought by private delegatees.” PennEast, 141 S. Ct. at 2259. The parties in that case, however, did not address whether, even assuming such consent, federal jurisdiction over such proceedings—if brought against one State by a citizen of another State—might still be barred by the Eleventh Amendment’s statement that “[t]he Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend” to suits “commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State.” This case, like PennEast, is a Natural Gas Act condemnation action, and it is brought against one State by a citizen of another. The question presented is: Does the Eleventh Amendment’s statement that “[t]he Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend” to suits “commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State” bar federal courts from exercising jurisdiction over such suits notwithstanding the defendant State’s consent?