A decision before the U.S. Supreme Court could have wide implications for construction of U.S. pipelines and other projects involving federal eminent domain power vs. state authority—even though the issue is an arcane legal one that does not specifically involve the natural gas project being decided.

在涉及新泽西州提出的1亿美元卫生管道开发商占领的州土地的案件中，美国司法部的代理总检察长提倡为广泛的联邦权力和范围狭窄的国家权利，

“It’s an issue of where a delegation of federal eminent domain power to a private party runs head on into a state’s sovereign immunity,” Jennifer Danis, senior fellow at Columbia University Law School’s Sabin Center for Climate Change Law, told ENR. "That position reflects neither the Biden administration's climate policy nor environmental priorities, but rather the solicitor general’s unique role as part of an office that varies little with each new administration.”

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission in 2017 authorized PennEast Pipeline Co. to build a 120-mile pipeline from Pennsylvania to New Jersey with granted use of eminent domain to obtain state land needed to build it. The pipeline would transport natural gas from the Marcellus Shale fields to New Jersey and New York markets.

At issue is a2019年裁决by the federal appeals court in Philadelphia that said the U.S. Natural Gas Act, which governs natural gas pipelines, did not authorize a private line owner with FERC approval to condemn state land.

The ultimate question before the high court, which agreed to hear the case last month and is set to hear arguments April 28, is whether the U.S. government has broad eminent domain powers and whether states lack any right to object.

But the law is vague, says Tom Gilbert, director of energy, climate and natural resources for the New Jersey Conservation Foundation.

While Danis says this case is not focused on natural gas, advocates see it squarely as being about that. "The appellate court ruling, which the pipeline company is challenging, would not just undercut statutory framework, but also development and operation of critical natural gas infrastructure nationwide,” the American Gas Association and the Interstate Natural Gas Association of America said in a supporting legal brief filed March 8 with the court.

这些组织声称，上诉法院的裁决将赋予各州“否决”联邦批准的州际天然气管道的权力。

国际运营工程师联盟以及水管工和管道工会也表示，该裁决将导致贫民窟建筑突然停止造成的工作丧失。他们说，该决定“将对整个天然气行业产生严重且持久的负面影响，包括成千上万的工会工人进行了广泛的培训以建立和维护天然气管道基础设施。”

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce said the ruling would impact other natural gas pipelines, also due to state objections, in its March 8 brief.

Penneast辩称，上诉法院裁定将近70年的法律裁定，该州表示，各州没有侵犯联邦杰出领域权力的主权豁免权。Penneast说：“它为转换国家土地的路线图（包括形成州边界的河流床）的路线图构成了管道开发的障碍。“这一前景很好地说明了为什么（宪法）授予新联邦政府规范州际贸易的权力。”

第neast管道和其他人的反对者必须在3月底之前提出论点。

领导特拉华河管理员网络的玛雅·范·罗森（Maya Van Rossum）在一份声明中说，正义论点是“滥用权力和信任，以及当前政府的失败……保护人民和我们的环境。”

One opponent who did not speak for attribution said the best way for a state to halt a pipeline is to deny it a federal Clean Water Act water quality permit/

。