Judicary

Show Only ...
Maps - Photos - Videos

PennEast will appeal to U.S. Supreme Court over lower court’s adverse ruling | StateImpact Pennsylvania

PennEast will appeal to U.S. Supreme Court over lower court’s adverse ruling | StateImpact Pennsylvania

PennEast Pipeline LLC yesterday vowed to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court a lower court ruling that looms as a major impediment to its proposed 120 mile-project to bring natural gas from Pennsylvania into New Jersey.

The company announced in a press release it would seek to overturn a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit that denied PennEast’s bid to condemn state-owned lands for its $1 billion project.

Can Congress authorize a private corporation to sue a state over it's objection? This might be a very interesting 11th amendment - sovereign immunity case if it makes it to the Supreme Court. If the Court finds in the favor of PennEast, it would give Congress enormous power to allow them to grant any party the ability to sue a state over any thing Congress see fits. But I doubt the Supreme Court will go that far, but I don't see how you open the barndoor part the way without opening all the way.

I've always thought sovereign immunity is a terrible concept in law, a throwback to the era of Kings and Queens. I don't think the government should be above the law, but instead should be held to same standard as private individuals and businesses. Yes, that would make life more expensive for taxpayers when government screws up. But it would make government more responsible like private businesses.

This Supreme Court Decision Should Worry the EPA and FDA

This Supreme Court Decision Should Worry the EPA and FDA

Under existing law, vast discretion isn’t unconstitutional provided there’s an intelligible principle to guide it. The laws that delegate authority for regulation to the Environmental Protection Agency or the Food and Drug Administration confer that authority in extremely general terms — but express the goals of a cleaner environment and safer food and drugs

Yet Gorsuch argued that the very doctrine of the intelligible principle makes no sense, and “has no basis in the original meaning of the Constitution.” In his view, Congress can assign “essentially fact-finding responsibility” to the executive branch. But it can’t delegate “legislative power,” understood very roughly to mean the exercise of central policy-making judgment characterized by “unfettered discretion.”

I think this is a interesting court case to watch, as sometimes administrative agencies do abuse their power making public policy when that's the job of the  congress.