Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/19-1039_8n5a.pdf
Page Number: 13

8 

PENNEAST PIPELINE CO. v. NEW JERSEY 

Opinion of the Court 

___ (2019) (slip op., at 3) (contrasting “direct condemnation” 
with “inverse condemnation”). 

When the Constitution and Bill of Rights were ratified, 
they did not include the words “eminent domain.”  The Tak-
ings  Clause  of  the  Fifth  Amendment  (“nor  shall  private
property  be  taken  for  public  use,  without  just  compensa-
tion”)  nevertheless  recognized  the  existence  of  such  a 
power.  Shortly after the founding, the Federal Government
began  exercising  its  eminent  domain  authority  in  areas
subject  to  exclusive  federal  jurisdiction.  See,  e.g.,  Act  of 
Mar. 3, 1809, 2 Stat. 539 (authorizing construction of turn-
pike  road  in  the  District  of  Columbia);  see  also  Custiss  v. 
Georgetown  &  Alexandria  Turnpike  Co.,  6  Cranch  233 
(1810)  (suit  by  one  of  Martha  Washington’s  grandsons  to 
quash inquisition into value of land pursuant to Act).

By  the  second  half  of  the  19th  century,  however,  this
Court confirmed that federal eminent domain extended to 
property within state boundaries as well.  In Kohl v. United 
States, 91 U. S. 367 (1876), we held that the United States 
could condemn land in Ohio to construct a federal building. 
We reasoned that “[t]he powers vested by the Constitution
in the general government demand for their exercise the ac-
quisition of  lands  in  all  the  States.”   Id.,  at  371.    And  we 
noted that “[t]he right of eminent domain was one of those 
means well known when the Constitution was adopted, and 
employed to obtain lands for public uses.”  Id., at 372.  The 
federal eminent domain power, we said, “can neither be en-
larged nor diminished by a State.  Nor can any State pre-
scribe the manner in which it must be exercised.”  Id., at 
374.  And to avoid any doubt, we added that “[t]he consent 
of a State can never be a condition precedent to [the] enjoy-
ment” of federal eminent domain.  Ibid.
  While Kohl involved the condemnation of private land, we
have since explained that federal eminent domain applies
to  state  property  interests  as  well.    In  Oklahoma  ex  rel. 
Phillips  v.  Guy  F.  Atkinson  Co.,  313  U. S.  508  (1941),  we