Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/19-1039_8n5a.pdf
Page Number: 33

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

1 

BARRETT, J., dissenting 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

_________________ 

No. 19–1039 
_________________ 

PENNEAST PIPELINE COMPANY, LLC, PETITIONER 
v. NEW JERSEY, ET AL. 

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF 
APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT 

[June 29, 2021] 

JUSTICE BARRETT, with whom JUSTICE THOMAS, JUSTICE 

KAGAN, and JUSTICE GORSUCH join, dissenting. 

A  straightforward  application  of  our  precedent  resolves
this case.  Congress passed the Natural Gas Act in reliance
on its power to regulate interstate commerce, and we have 
repeatedly held that the Commerce Clause does not permit 
Congress  to  strip  the  States  of  their  sovereign  immunity.
Recognizing that barrier, the Court insists that eminent do-
main  is  a  special  case.  New  Jersey  has  no  sovereign  im-
munity to assert, it says, because the States surrendered to
private condemnation suits in the plan of the Convention. 
This argument has no textual, structural, or historical sup-
port.  Because there is no reason to treat private condem-
nation suits differently from any other cause of action cre-
ated  pursuant  to  the  Commerce  Clause,  I  respectfully
dissent. 

I 
As  a  “general  rule,”  Congress  cannot  circumvent  state
sovereign  immunity’s  limitations  on  the  judicial  power 
through its Article I powers.  Allen v. Cooper, 589 U. S. ___, 
___ (2020) (slip op., at 7).  Thus, even in areas where Article 
I grants it “complete lawmaking authority,” Congress lacks
a tool that it could otherwise use to implement its power: