Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/19-1039_8n5a.pdf
Page Number: 21.0

16 

PENNEAST PIPELINE CO. v. NEW JERSEY 

Opinion of the Court 

656 (quoting 32 F., at 19).  The plan of the Convention con-
templated that States’ eminent domain power would yield
to that of the Federal Government “so far as is necessary to
the enjoyment of the powers conferred upon it by the Con-
stitution.”  Kohl, 91 U. S., at 372.  As we explained in Cher-
okee  Nation  (again  quoting  Justice  Bradley  in  Stockton),
“[i]f  it  is  necessary  that  the  United  States  government
should have an eminent domain still higher than that of the 
State, in order that it may fully carry out the objects and
purposes of the Constitution, then it has it.”  135 U. S., at 
656 (quoting 32 F., at 19).  The Court left no doubt about 
the importance of the proposition: “This is not a matter of 
words, but of things.”  135 U. S., at 656 (quoting 32 F., at 
19).  And as we have emphasized in cases involving delega-
tions of the federal eminent domain power, Congress “may,
at  its  discretion,  use  its  sovereign  powers,  directly  or
through a corporation created for that object.”  Luxton, 153 
U. S., at 530.  PennEast’s condemnation action to give effect 
to  the  federal  eminent  domain  power  falls  comfortably
within  the  class  of  suits  to  which  States  consented  under 
the plan of the Convention. 

The respondents and the dissent do not dispute that the
Federal Government enjoys a power of eminent domain su-
perior to that of the States.  Nor do they dispute that the 
Federal  Government  can  delegate  that  power  to  private
parties.  They  instead  assert  that  the  only  “question  is
whether Congress can authorize a private party to bring a 
condemnation suit against a State.”  Post, at 5; see Brief for 
Respondent  NCJF  40;  Brief  for  Respondent  New  Jersey 
et al. 15.  And they argue that because there is no founding-
era evidence of such suits, States did not consent to them 
when  they  entered  the  federal  system.    See  post,  at  5–7; 
Brief  for  Respondent  NCJF  39–42;  Brief  for  Respondent 
New Jersey et al. 13–16. 

The flaw in this reasoning is that it attempts to divorce