Today in Supreme Court History: June 29, 1992

6/29/1992: Planned Parenthood v. Casey is decided.

Comments

[Dan Schiavetta]

Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (decided June 29, 1992): invalidated on “undue burden” grounds Pennsylvania statute requiring spousal notice for abortion; left in place requirement of waiting period and parental consent for minors

Ashcroft v. ACLU, 535 U.S. 564 (decided June 29, 2004): enjoined on First Amendment grounds enforcement of the Child Online Protection Act which penalized providers that allowed minors to access “harmful content”; injunction ended up being permanent

Penneast Pipeline Co. v. New Jersey, 594 U.S. --- (decided June 29, 2021): federal agency can exercise eminent domain to seize land owned by a State (here, right-of-way for a natural gas pipeline)

Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238 (decided June 29, 1972): death penalty is “cruel and unusual punishment” in violation of Eighth Amendment, citing “evolving standards of decency” (overruled by Gregg v. Georgia, 1976)

Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Finance Protection Bureau, 591 U.S. --- (decided June 29, 2020): the makeup of the CFPB (a single Director with significant executive authority removable by President only “for cause”) violated separation of powers

Torres v. Texas Dept. of Public Safety, 597 U.S. --- (decided June 29, 2022): Texas state trooper enlisted, was sent to Iraq, was disabled due to exposure to toxic smoke, and came back to ask for re-employment in any way they could use him. They refused. The federal Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act allowed him to sue Texas in state court. The Court holds that this does not violate the Eleventh Amendment which applies only to suits in federal courts.

Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta, 597 U.S. --- (decided June 29, 2022): state courts had concurrent jurisdiction with tribal courts over crimes on reservation committed by non-Indians against Indians (father prosecuted for neglect of his stepdaughter)

Miller v. Johnson,515 U.S. 900 (decided June 29, 1995): struck down attempt to create second black majority Congressional district due to grotesque boundaries (on the map it looked like a cat with a very long tongue jumping up to snare a spider)

Ricci v. DeStefano, 557 U.S. 557 (decided June 29, 2009): Title VII (equal opportunity in hiring) was violated when city hired black firefighters for management positions even though none passed the qualifying exam (whereas 19 white and 1 hispanic applicants did pass)

Bacchus Imports v. Dias, 468 U.S. 263 (decided June 29, 1984): struck down Hawaii’s tax exemption for in-state manufactured brandy as violating Dormant Commerce Clause

[The Margrave of Azilia]

"Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238 (decided June 29, 1972): death penalty is “cruel and unusual punishment” in violation of Eighth Amendment, citing “evolving standards of decency” (overruled by Gregg v. Georgia, 1976)"

Strictly speaking, they abolished the *then-existing* death penalties because they found constitutional defects in them all. In Gregg, they alleged that Georgia had solved the defects (I'm not saying they did, just that the Supreme Court said they did).

[SMP0328]

Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238 (decided June 29, 1972): death penalty is “cruel and unusual punishment” in violation of Eighth Amendment, citing “evolving standards of decency” (overruled by Gregg v. Georgia, 1976)

Gregg did not overrule Furman, but ruled that in the latter ruled that Georgia had complied with the dictates of the former and so could resume having the death penalty.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Both of you are technically correct. Will rephrase. Thanks!

[Dan Schiavetta]

What confused me is that Furman (and the dissent in Gregg) were always cited for the proposition that the death penalty is per se a violation of the Eighth Amendment, in the many dissents by Brennan, Marshall, Stevens and finally Breyer and Sotomayor where the Court refused to stay an execution.

[apedad]

Re: Penneast Pipeline Co. v. New Jersey

Facts of the case

The Natural Gas Act (NGA), 15 U.S.C. §§ 717–717Z, permits private companies to exercise the federal government’s power to take property by eminent domain, subject to certain jurisdictional requirements. PennEast Pipeline Co. obtained federal approval to build a pipeline through Pennsylvania and New Jersey and sued under the NGA to gain access to the properties along the pipeline route, of which the State of New Jersey owns 42. New Jersey sought dismissal of PennEast’s lawsuits for lack of jurisdiction based on the state’s sovereign immunity and, separately, because PennEast failed to satisfy the jurisdictional requirements of the NGA.

The district court ruled in favor of PennEast and granted a preliminary injunctive relief for immediate access to the properties. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit vacated, finding that while the NGA delegates the federal government’s eminent-domain power, it does not abrogate state sovereign immunity. PennEast’s lawsuits are thus barred by Eleventh Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Question

Does the Natural Gas Act delegate the federal government’s eminent-domain power, and does it abrogate state sovereign immunity in such cases?

Conclusion (5 - 4)

Section 717(h) of the Natural Gas Act authorizes the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to delegate to a private company the power to condemn all necessary rights-of-way, whether owned by private parties or states. Chief Justice John Roberts authored the 5-4 majority opinion of the Court.

States are generally immune from lawsuits unless they have consented or Congress has abrogated their immunity. With respect to the federal eminent domain power, the states waived their sovereign immunity when they ratified the Constitution. 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. This understanding is consistent with the nation’s history and the Court’s precedents. Thus, PennEast’s condemnation of New Jersey land to build the pipeline does not offend state sovereignty.

Justice Neil Gorsuch authored a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Clarence Thomas joined. Joining Justice Barrett’s dissenting opinion in full, Justice Gorsuch added only a clarification that states have two federal-law immunities from suit: structural immunity and Eleventh Amendment immunity. The lower court should consider whether either type of immunity bars the suit.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett authored a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Thomas, Kagan, and Gorsuch joined. Justice Barrett argued that Congress’s power to strip states of their sovereign immunity is extremely limited, and there is no reason to treat private condemnation actions as within one of those limited exceptions. (oyez)

I don't remember this case when it came out but it seems like the tripping point is that it's a private company that's bringing the suit and not the federal govt - even though the private company is merely acting as an instrument for the foreign govt.

"Therefore, Congress cannot enable a private party like PennEast to institute a condemnation action against a nonconsenting State like New Jersey." (from the dissent)

[Dan Schiavetta]

Thanks

I suppose my summary had the wrong emphasis. The general idea that the federal government has eminent domain over state property was new to me.

[apedad]

Yeah, the dissent even says the feds can take state land.

The Federal Government can exercise that power
to take state land. Oklahoma ex rel. Phillips v. Guy F. Atkinson Co., 313 U. S. 508, 534 (1941). And it can take that
land via a condemnation action against a nonconsenting
State not because eminent domain is special, but for the
same reason it can sue a nonconsenting State in any other
proceeding: “States have no sovereign immunity as against
the Federal Government.” West Virginia v. United States,
479 U. S. 305, 311 (1987) (citing United States v. Texas, 143
U. S. 621, 646 (1892)).

Pg 4 of the dissent: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/19-1039_8n5a.pdf

[Syd Henderson]

Didn't this come up during the building of the transcontinental railroad (although I imagine the states it went through didn't object).

[apedad]

Ugh...

". . . even though the private company is merely acting as an instrument for the foreign govt."

Obviously is should say federal govt.

[Mr. Bumble]

Gerrymandering will do that.