The Supreme Court revived a lawsuit filed by Virginia property owners challenging the seizure of their land to make way for a natural gas pipeline.
The court’s decision, which came on April 24 in an unsigned order with no recorded dissents, is the latest development in a long-running legal battle between Mountain Valley Pipeline and six landowners in Franklin, Montgomery, and Roanoke counties.
Under the federal Natural Gas Act, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) can delegate its authority to private companies to seize land for energy projects. It delegated authority to Mountain Valley. The landowners dispute the condemnation of their land for the pipeline, arguing that Congress improperly delegated its authority to FERC.
The pipeline stretches from northern West Virginia to Southwest Virginia before connecting with another line in North Carolina. The company purchased easements from property owners willing to agree to them but used eminent domain against those who didn’t.
In the new decision in Bohon v. FERC, court file 22-256, the Supreme Court simultaneously granted the landowners’ request seeking review while skipping over the oral argument phase in which the merits of the case would have been considered. Some lawyers call this process GVR, which stands for grant, vacate, and remand.
The Supreme Court remanded the case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit “for further consideration in light of Axon Enterprise Inc. v. FTC,” a unanimous decision the Supreme Court handed down on April 14.
In the Axon case, the Supreme Court took steps to rein in the so-called administrative state and reaffirm the separation of powers doctrine that prevents any specific branch of the government from exercising the core functions of another. The idea behind the doctrine is to discourage the concentration of power and ensure checks and balances.
The litigants challenging federal agencies in Axon argued that they should be able to contest the way the tribunals are constituted in federal courts without first having to launch a lengthy, expensive challenge within the administrative system.
A federal district court judge in Washington found in 2020 that he didn’t have jurisdiction to hear the Bohon case because a law required the parties to ask for a rehearing before the FERC.
The landowners told the Supreme Court that it was unfair that the law compelled them to advance their separation of powers argument in front of FERC, the same agency whose authority they were disputing, and apparently the Supreme Court agreed.
Ruling Welcomed
Their local attorney, Mia Yugo of Yugo Collins in Roanoke, welcomed the new court ruling.“Landowners are extremely grateful the Supreme Court granted their petition and look forward to the opportunity to finally get a decision on the merits of their non-delegation arguments,” Yugo said in a statement forwarded to The Epoch Times.
“The Non-Delegation Doctrine is a critical legal doctrine for the preservation of freedom in this country; it is a staple of the separation of powers. This was an uphill battle, and today marks a huge win for landowners. Our clients have fought for many years to get their ‘day in court’ on the merits of their constitutional claim. We couldn’t be happier with the Court’s decision.”
Anthony Caso, counsel for the Constitutional Counsel Group, which filed a friend-of-the-court brief, also praised the ruling.
“This was the correct decision,“ Caso said. ”Forcing a party to present constitutional claims about the agency’s authority to the agency doesn’t make any sense. The Constitution creates a judicial branch for a reason.”
Mountain Valley spokeswoman Natalie Cox said in a statement that the court’s ruling was “procedural and will lead to additional briefing at the D.C. Circuit Court.”
“However, as this remains pending litigation, we are unable to provide additional details at this time,” Cox said.
The Epoch Times reached out to the U.S. Department of Justice, which represented FERC in the proceeding, but didn’t receive a reply by press time.
