The Most Fascinating ConLaw Decision of the Term: PennEast Pipeline v. New Jersey

The non-curious/curious caucus divide.


This term has been rather sleepy. Fulton fizzled. Mahanoy disappointed. Yellen confused. So far, only one case will make the Fourth Edition of the Barnett/Blackman casebook: Cedar Point Nursery. The AFP case may be useful for the freedom of association chapter, but I suspect the opinion will be fractured.

Still, there has been one important constitutional law decision that largely flew under the radar: PennEast Pipeline v. New Jersey. Ilya may be right that both sides deserved to lose. But the contrast between the majority opinions and the dissenting opinions reveal a lot about the present Roberts Court. The Justices divide about text, history, and structure. They disagree about enumerated powers and sovereign immunity. They differ about the role that historical practice plays in constitutional discourse. This case has everything.

Moreover, the lines were not ideological. Chief Justice Roberts wrote the majority opinion, which was joined by Justices Breyer, Alito, Sotomayor, and Kavanaugh. Justice Gorsuch wrote one dissent, which was joined by Justice Thomas. Justice Barrett wrote a second dissent, which was joined by Justices Thomas, Kagan, and Gorsuch.

I would describe this line as the non-curious/curious caucuses. The members of the majority seem to lack a curiosity about the law. They largely view the law in a utilitarian fashion to achieve certain outcomes. Of course, they do not share the same values. Justices Alito and Sotomayor approach the law from diametrically opposite perspectives. But they are both heavily influenced by pragmatic concerns. Justice Breyer wants to make democracy work. And Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Kavanaugh are concerned with maintaining some abstract form of equipoise. These principles, whatever they are, generally prevail over any formal doctrine. They are not textualists or originalists. They are pragmatists. And in a case without any obvious ideological valences, they unite.

The dissenters are different. They routinely exhibit a genuine curiosity about the law. They are often willing to challenge staid conceptions of the law in the pursuit of ideas. More often than not, Justice Kagan has to suppress those urges to keep a majority opinion. But during oral arguments, and when she is in dissent, Kagan shows her scholarly flair. Justice Thomas routinely seeks to challenge conventional thinking. And Justice Gorsuch signs onto that mantle. And, I'm glad to see that Justice Barrett is flexing her intellectual muscles. Her Penn East dissent was the strongest opinion she has written so far. I'll have much more to say about it in a later writing.

NEXT: The Pennsylvania Anti-CRT Bill

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. "Unprincipled" vs. "principled".

  2. Actually, the most interesting decision came down today from the PA Supreme Court relative to Bill Cosby -- who is now an innocent man, and can not be tried again.

    As I understand it, the court hit on the two things that bothered me most about this trial -- the breach of the earlier plea deal with the former prosecutor and the introduction of the five other alleged victims.

    It's also worth remembering that no one ever criminally charged Cosby with anything until AFTER he started preaching a quite socially conservative message stating that Black people need to clean up their own act.

  3. The PennEast Pipeline case addresses an important issue of interstate commerce -- the ability of a state to block commerce between two other states, or another state and a foreign country (e.g. Canada).

    The one I am watching -- and laughing at -- involves Massachusetts EcoNazis who wish to import Canadian Hydro (electricity) through Maine while concurrently fighting a natural gas compressing station necessary to pipe natural gas to Maine and the Canadian Maritime Provinces.

    Maine doesn't want the powerlines strung through pristine wilderness (including crossing the Kennebec River in a place popular with wildwater rafters) -- and because Maine generally hates Massachusetts.

    Massachusetts doesn't want the compressor station because the gas isn't needed for Massachusetts (it isn't) and some asinine belief that instead of being used for the downstream service that it is intended for, it will instead be liquified into LNG and shipped to Europe. And they are screaming "environmental racism" because the compressor station is to be built on the site of an old circa-WW-II shipyard.

    If you look back to what was happening in the 1780s -- when all of the states (including Vermont) had access to water transportation, then the prevailing manner of transportation -- this sort of parochial roadblocking was what the Constitution was intended to prevent. Hence the issue is even bigger now than it was then....

    1. Lake Champlain, Burlington, St Albans....

      Some of my favorite places in the world.

  4. Sweaters/sweatshirts are the essentials of any wardrobe, and everyone must have it. Basically, its use is mostly in winters and cool weather. Sometimes they are so thin looking but so much heat-producing as it also makes up of pure wool and other stuff. Anyone can wear it easily either kid or grownups, and will definitely love it. AI YoungBoy Sweatshirt

Please to post comments