Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/19-1039_8n5a.pdf
Page Number: 41

Cite as:  594 U. S. ____ (2021) 

9 

BARRETT, J., dissenting 

however,  a  reason  to  set  sovereign  immunity  aside.    It  is 
instead a deliberately chosen feature of the constitutional 
design. 

III 
While  the  Court  cloaks  its  analysis  in  the  “plan  of  the 
Convention,”  it  seems  to  be  animated  by  pragmatic  con-
cerns.  Congress  judged  private  condemnation  suits  to  be
the  most  efficient  way  to  construct  natural  gas  pipelines,
and to this point, States have cooperated.  Ante, at 3–4.  But 
now that New Jersey has chosen to object, it threatens to 
“thwart” federal policy.  Ante, at 10.  If the Court sided with 
New Jersey and Congress did not amend §717f(h), New Jer-
sey (not to mention other States) could hold up construction 
of  the  pipeline  indefinitely.    And  even  if  §717f(h)  were
amended, a new statutory procedure might be less efficient 
than  permitting  PennEast  to  sue  New  Jersey  directly.
Holding New Jersey immune from suit thus would reward 
its intransigence.

Our precedents provide a ready response: The defense of
sovereign immunity always has the potential of making it 
easier for States to get away with bad behavior—like copy-
right infringement, Allen, 589 U. S., at ___–___ (slip op., at
2–4),  patent  infringement,  Florida  Prepaid,  527  U. S.,  at 
630–634, and even reneging on debts, Chisholm v. Georgia, 
2 Dall. 419, 430 (1793).  Indeed, concern about States using 
sovereign  immunity  to  thwart  federal  policy  is  precisely 
why many  Justices of this Court have dissented from our 
sovereign  immunity  jurisprudence.    See,  e.g.,  Seminole 
Tribe,  517  U. S.,  at  77  (Stevens,  J.,  dissenting)  (objecting 
that the majority’s holding “prevents Congress from provid-
ing  a  federal  forum  for  a  broad  range  of  actions  against 
States, from those sounding in copyright and patent law, to
those concerning bankruptcy, environmental law, and the 
regulation of our vast national economy”).  The availability 
of the defense does not depend on whether a court approves