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

14 

PENNEAST PIPELINE CO. v. NEW JERSEY 

Opinion of the Court 

ternal quotation marks omitted).  Congress may also abro-
gate  state  sovereign  immunity  under  the  Fourteenth
Amendment,  Fitzpatrick  v.  Bitzer,  427  U. S.  445,  456 
(1976), again assuming it does so with the requisite clarity, 
Nevada Dept. of Human Resources v. Hibbs, 538 U. S. 721, 
726 (2003).  And a State may be sued if it has agreed to suit
in the “plan of the Convention,” which is shorthand for “the
structure  of  the  original  Constitution  itself.”  Alden,  527 
U. S.,  at  728;  see  The  Federalist  No. 81,  pp. 548–549  (J.
Cooke ed. 1961) (A.  Hamilton).  The “plan of  the Conven-
tion”  includes  certain  waivers  of  sovereign  immunity  to 
which all States implicitly consented at the founding.  See 
Alden,  527  U. S.,  at  755–756.    We  have  recognized  such
waivers in the context of bankruptcy proceedings, Central 
Va. Community College v. Katz, 546 U. S. 356, 379 (2006); 
see Allen v. Cooper, 589 U. S. ___, ___ (2020) (slip op., at 8), 
suits by other States, South Dakota v. North Carolina, 192 
U. S. 286, 318 (1904), and suits by the Federal Government, 
United States v. Texas, 143 U. S. 621, 646 (1892). 

B 
The respondents and the dissent argue that private par-
ties cannot condemn state-owned property under §717f(h) 
because  there  is  no  applicable  exception  to  sovereign  im-
munity.  In the dissent’s view, PennEast’s suit is barred be-
cause §717f(h) is just another “exercise of Congress’ power 
to regulate interstate commerce,” and “Congress cannot au-
thorize private suits against a nonconsenting State pursu-
ant to its Commerce Clause power.”  Post, at 4 (opinion of 
BARRETT,  J.);  see  also  Brief  for  Respondent  NJCF  22–24.
The dissent also contends that States did not implicitly con-
sent to private condemnation suits when they ratified the 
Constitution.  See post, at 4–7; see also Brief for Respondent
NJCF 38–44; Brief for Respondent New Jersey et al. 13–22. 
Beginning with the argument that Congress cannot sub-