Professional Documents
Culture Documents
18-1206
================================================================
In The
Supreme Court of the United States
------------------------------------------------------------------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
ARGUMENT ........................................................ 3
I. The decision below contravenes this Court’s
precedent and the system of federal eminent
domain created by Congress ........................ 3
II. The question presented is of nationwide
importance ................................................. 7
CONCLUSION..................................................... 10
ii
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Page
CASES
Danforth v. United States, 308 U.S. 271 (1939) ...........3
Grupo Mexicano de Desarrollo S.A. v. Alliance
Bond Fund, 527 U.S. 308 (1999) ...............................4
Kirby Forest Indus., Inc. v. United States, 467
U.S. 1 (1984) .............................................. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7
Mountain Valley Pipeline, LLC v. 6.56 Acres, 915
F.3d 197 (4th Cir. 2019) .............................................6
N. Border Pipeline Co. v. 86.72 Acres, 144 F.3d
469 (7th Cir. 1998) ................................................. 3, 4
Star Athletica, L.L.C. v. Varsity Brands, Inc., 137
S. Ct. 1002 (2017) ......................................................6
Transcon. Gas Pipe Line Co., LLC v. 6.04 Acres,
910 F.3d 1130 (11th Cir. 2018), cert. denied sub
nom. Goldenberg v. Transcon. Gas Pipe Line
Co., LLC, No. 18-1174, 2019 WL 1116465 (U.S.
Apr. 29, 2019).............................................................2
United States v. Bouchard, 64 F.2d 482 (2d Cir.
1933) ..........................................................................3
United States v. Carmack, 329 U.S. 230 (1946)............6
United States v. Dow, 357 U.S. 17 (1958) .....................8
Washington Metro. Area Transit Auth. v. One
Parcel of Land, 706 F.2d 1312 (4th Cir. 1983) ..........7
iii
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES—Continued
Page
CODES AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS
40 U.S.C. § 3114(b) .................................................... 7, 9
42 U.S.C. § 4651(4) ........................................................8
OTHER AUTHORITIES
Henry E. Mills et al., Mills on the Law of Eminent
Domain § 105 (1888) .................................................7
More property owners along pipeline notified of
possible liens, ABC27 News (Apr. 19, 2019),
https://tinyurl.com/y37otd4y.....................................9
1
ARGUMENT
I. The decision below contravenes this Court’s
precedent and the system of federal eminent
domain created by Congress.
The heart of Transcontinental’s argument in oppo-
sition is that the ruling below conflicts neither with
this Court’s precedents nor with the Seventh Circuit’s
decision in Northern Border Pipeline Company v. 86.72
Acres, 144 F.3d 469 (7th Cir. 1998). Repeating the Third
Circuit’s error, the company contends that the prelim-
inary injunctions granted here are no different in scope
from the relief that would be available after final judg-
ment in the condemnation actions. E.g., Br. in Opp. 20.
That is incorrect. As described in the petition, the
final judgment in a condemnation action is not an or-
der transferring property from A to B; rather, it is an
order authorizing A to purchase (or acknowledging
that A has purchased) property from B. Pet. 15–16.
While it is common to refer to condemnations as “tak-
ings,” a straight-condemnation action does not let the
condemnor “take” anything. Instead, the action creates
an “option to buy the property at the adjudicated
price.” Kirby Forest Indus., Inc. v. United States, 467
U.S. 1, 4 (1984). It “is an offer subject to acceptance by
the condemnor.” Danforth v. United States, 308 U.S.
271, 284 (1939); accord United States v. Bouchard, 64
F.2d 482, 485 (2d Cir. 1933) (L. Hand, J.).
Transcontinental’s only response to Kirby Forest is
to say that (1) as a constitutional matter, compensation
need not be contemporaneous with a taking and (2)
nothing in Kirby Forest suggests that the Court meant
4
power to take now and pay later, but because the lower
courts have repeatedly held that the timing of posses-
sion is not a substantive property right. But the losses
suffered by petitioners—which include loss of the right
to use, enjoy, and exclude others from their land—are
plenty substantive. The lower courts’ mistaken conclu-
sion to the contrary disrupts the balance between con-
demnors and condemnees across the Nation, and it
warrants this Court’s review.
------------------------------------------------------------------
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons and those stated in the
petition for writ of certiorari, the petition should be
granted.
Respectfully submitted,
JEREMY HOPKINS DANA BERLINER
CRANFILL SUMNER & ROBERT MCNAMARA*
HARTZOG LLP SAMUEL GEDGE
5420 Wade Park Blvd., INSTITUTE FOR JUSTICE
Ste. 300 901 North Glebe Rd.
Raleigh, NC 27607 Ste. 900
Arlington, VA 22203
CAROLYN ELEFANT
Tel: (703) 682-9320
LAW OFFICES OF
rmcnamara@ij.org
CAROLYN ELEFANT
8th Floor MICHAEL N. ONUFRAK
1440 G St. N.W. SIOBHAN K. COLE
Washington, DC 20005 WHITE AND WILLIAMS LLP
1650 Market St., Ste. 1800
Philadelphia, PA 19103
* Counsel of Record
Counsel for Petitioners