Opinion ID: 797350
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Jurisdiction over the CTDEP and the Commissioner

Text: 21 The Eleventh Amendment provides that United States courts may not consider any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State . . . . U.S. Const. amend. XI. Although not clear from the terms of the amendment, the Supreme Court has interpreted this language to bar suit against a state by its own citizens. See Seminole Tribe of Fla. v. Florida, 517 U.S. 44, 54, 116 S.Ct. 1114, 134 L.Ed.2d 252 (1996) (citing Hans v. Louisiana, 134 U.S. 1, 10 S.Ct. 504, 33 L.Ed. 842 (1890)). The Supreme Court also applies this immunity to suits against state agencies. See Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 100, 104 S.Ct. 900, 79 L.Ed.2d 67 (1984) (holding that in the absence of consent a suit in which the State or one of its agencies or departments is named as the defendant is proscribed by the Eleventh Amendment). 22 Respondent argues that section 19(d) of the NGA violates the Eleventh Amendment because it permits a private company to bring suit in federal court to challenge a decision by a state agency. Respondent acknowledges two circumstances in which private citizens may sue state agencies in federal court: (1) when Congress unequivocally expresses its intent to abrogate state sovereign immunity pursuant to a valid grant of constitutional authority, see Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer, 427 U.S. 445, 456, 96 S.Ct. 2666, 49 L.Ed.2d 614 (1976); and (2) when a State voluntarily waives its Eleventh Amendment immunity, see Coll. Sav. Bank v. Fla. Prepaid Postsecondary Educ. Expense Bd., 527 U.S. 666, 686-87, 119 S.Ct. 2219, 144 L.Ed.2d 605 (1999) (inferring State waiver of immunity from the State's acceptance of a gratuity offered by Congress conditioned on the State's willingness to be subject to suit in federal court). Respondent argues that the CTDEP is entitled to a presumption of immunity, and that neither of the above exceptions to Eleventh Amendment immunity exist here. See id. at 682, 119 S.Ct. 2219 (stating that `[c]ourts indulge every reasonable presumption against waiver' of sovereign immunity (quoting Aetna Ins. Co. v. Kennedy ex rel. Bogash, 301 U.S. 389, 393, 57 S.Ct. 809, 81 L.Ed. 1177 (1937))). 23 Islander East analogizes the Court's jurisdiction under section 19(d) of the NGA to the federal regulatory scheme established by the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (TCA), 47 U.S.C. §§ 151-614, and it argues that state agencies regulating pursuant to federal grants under the authority of both the NGA and the TCA thereby waive their sovereign immunity from suit. By passing the TCA, Congress federalized the regulation of competition for local telecommunications service, but granted states a limited right to regulate, conditioned on federal court review of state regulatory decisions. MCI Telecomm. Corp. v. Bell Atl.-Penn., 271 F.3d 491, 509 (3d Cir.2001). Under the TCA, if a state chooses not to regulate, regulatory decision-making reverts back to the Federal Communications Commission. Id.; see also 33 U.S.C. § 1341(a)(1) (providing that, under the CWA, if state refuses or declines to rule on WQC application within one year, regulatory decision-making reverts back to federal authorities). The Courts of Appeals that have considered the issue have uniformly held that state agencies that regulate agreements under the TCA knowingly waive their Eleventh Amendment immunity by voluntarily accepting the power to regulate local telecommunications competition. See Bell Atl.-Penn., 271 F.3d at 512-13 ([A] state commission that decides to participate in this statutory scheme is on notice from the outset that it will be subject to suit, brought only in federal court, by any party aggrieved by its decision.); AT&T Commc'ns v. BellSouth Telecomms. Inc., 238 F.3d 636, 645-47 (5th Cir.2001); MCI Telecomms. Corp. v. Ill. Bell Tel. Co., 222 F.3d 323, 342-43 (7th Cir.2000); MCI Telecomms. Corp. v. Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 216 F.3d 929, 938-39 (10th Cir.2000). But see Bell Atl. Md., Inc. v. MCI Worldcom, Inc., 240 F.3d 279, 293-94 (4th Cir.2001), vacated on other grounds sub nom. Verizon Md. Inc. v. Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 535 U.S. 635, 122 S.Ct. 1753, 152 L.Ed.2d 871 (2002). 8 24 As with the TCA, Congress wholly preempted and completely federalized the area of natural gas regulation by enacting the NGA. See Schneidewind v. ANR Pipeline Co., 485 U.S. at 300-01, 108 S.Ct. 1145 (describing the comprehensive federal regulatory scheme in the NGA). Congress did not, however, thereby supersede any other federal statutory requirements, such as section 401 of the CWA. Under the CWA, as described supra, at page 84 n. 4, Congress provides states with the option of being deputized regulators under the authority of federal law. 9 Without suggesting that states are required to relinquish their sovereign immunity with regard to all actions they take pursuant to the CWA, Petitioner argues that section 19(d) of the NGA does require a waiver of state sovereign immunity with respect to state agency decisions that are appealable under the EPACT's terms. Thus, Petitioner contends that Connecticut effectively waived its Eleventh Amendment immunity by electing to participate in the regulatory scheme provided by the NGA and the CWA. 25 Respondent does not dispute that by accepting a role as deputized regulator under the CWA, a state agrees to waive its immunity from suit under section 19(d) of the NGA. Instead, Respondent argues that it never waived its Eleventh Amendment immunity from suit under section 19(d) because this provision was passed into law only after the CTDEP denied Islander East's WQC application. Thus, Respondent argues that Connecticut did not knowingly agree that its participation in the NGA and CWA regulatory scheme would be conditioned upon accepting federal jurisdiction over its decisions made pursuant to that scheme. 26 Respondent's argument is flawed by a fatal omission: Respondent does not assert that Connecticut ever withdrew its participation from the CWA and NGA regulatory scheme following the enactment of the EPACT. Thus, by going forward with its federally deputized role even after the EPACT's enactment, Connecticut has now knowingly waived its immunity from section 19(d) suit in order to receive the benefits of participating in the NGA and CWA regulatory scheme. See Lapides v. Bd. of Regents, 535 U.S. 613, 619, 122 S.Ct. 1640, 152 L.Ed.2d 806 (2002) (noting that more than a century ago this Court indicated that a State's voluntary appearance in federal court amounted to a waiver of its Eleventh Amendment immunity (citing Clark v. Barnard, 108 U.S. 436, 447, 2 S.Ct. 878, 27 L.Ed. 780 (1883))); Coll. Sav. Bank v. Fla. Prepaid Postsecondary Educ. Expense Bd., 527 U.S. at 686-87, 119 S.Ct. 2219 (noting that a state constructively waives its Eleventh Amendment immunity by accepting a gift or gratuity conditioned on said waiver). 27 As a case in point, the CTDEP Denial continues to prevent Islander East from proceeding with its FERC-approved natural gas pipeline project, and the CTDEP has chosen to defend its denial of Islander East's WQC application in this litigation. The principles underlying State sovereign immunity do not justify applying Connecticut's waiver solely on a prospective basis, that is, only for new CWA determinations, especially where the state's decision continues to serve as a bar to proceeding with a federally approved natural gas project. This conclusion is particularly warranted where, as in this case, after the state becomes aware that it is subject to federal jurisdiction, it continues actively to litigate in defense of its earlier decision and elects not to abdicate its deputized authority back to the federal government. See AT&T Commc'ns v. BellSouth Telecomms., Inc., 238 F.3d at 645 ([A]fter College Savings, Congress may still obtain a non-verbal voluntary waiver of a state's Eleventh Amendment immunity, if the waiver can be inferred from the state's conduct in accepting a gratuity after being given clear and unambiguous statutory notice that it was conditioned on waiver of immunity.); see also In re Charter Oak Assocs., 361 F.3d 760, 767 (2d Cir.2004) (noting that the doctrine of waiver by litigation derives not from a state's `actual preference or desire,' but rather upon `the judicial need to avoid inconsistency, anomaly, and unfairness' (quoting Lapides v. Bd. of Regents, 535 U.S. at 620, 122 S.Ct. 1640)). Thus, we conclude that once Congress enacted section 19(d), Connecticut was on notice that its continued participation in the NGA and CWA regulatory scheme would constitute a waiver of its Eleventh Amendment immunity with respect to all suits under section 19(d). 28 Accordingly, in this case, Connecticut knowingly and intelligently waived its Eleventh Amendment immunity from section 19(d) suit. Because we hold that the Eleventh Amendment does not bar Petitioner's suit against the CTDEP, it is unnecessary for us to consider Petitioner's motion to add the Commissioner as a Respondent, or to address the application of the Ex parte Young doctrine to suits under section 19(d). Therefore, Petitioner's motion to add the Commissioner is denied as moot.
29 The Tenth Amendment prescribes that [t]he powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. U.S. Const. amend. X. Thus, in cases involving the division of authority between federal and state governments, [i]f a power is delegated to Congress in the Constitution, the Tenth Amendment expressly disclaims any reservation of that power to the States; if a power is an attribute of state sovereignty reserved by the Tenth Amendment, it is necessarily a power the Constitution has not conferred on Congress. New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144, 156, 112 S.Ct. 2408, 120 L.Ed.2d 120 (1992). 30 [W]here Congress has the authority to regulate private activity under the Commerce Clause, [the Supreme Court has] recognized Congress' power to offer States the choice of regulating that activity according to federal standards or having state law pre-empted by federal regulation. Id. at 167, 112 S.Ct. 2408. Congress's offer of shared regulatory authority does not run afoul of the Tenth Amendment. See Hodel v. Va. Surface Mining & Recl. Ass'n, 452 U.S. 264, 290, 101 S.Ct. 2352, 69 L.Ed.2d 1 (1981) (We fail to see why [the statute at issue] should become constitutionally suspect simply because Congress chose to allow the States a regulatory role.). 31 In this case, there is no question that the Federal Government under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution (Art. I, § 8, cl.3) has dominion, to the exclusion of the States, over navigable waters of the United States. City of Tacoma v. Taxpayers of Tacoma, 357 U.S. 320, 334, 78 S.Ct. 1209, 2 L.Ed.2d 1345 (1958). By enacting the CWA, Congress provided states with an offer of shared regulatory authority. See Arkansas v. Oklahoma, 503 U.S. 91, 101, 112 S.Ct. 1046, 117 L.Ed.2d 239 (1992) (stating that the CWA anticipates a partnership between the States and the Federal Government, animated by a shared objective). 32 Respondent does not dispute that under the CWA the Federal Government elected to maintain control over the mechanism of regulating discharges into navigable waters. Rather, Respondent argues that federal court review of a WQC decision infringes upon Connecticut's jurisdiction over its own public trust lands, i.e., the land underlying the Long Island Sound. See Idaho v. Coeur d'Alene Tribe of Idaho, 521 U.S. 261, 283, 117 S.Ct. 2028, 138 L.Ed.2d 438 (1997) (concluding that the court order sought would divest the State of its sovereign control over submerged lands, lands with a unique status in the law and infused with a public trust the State itself is bound to respect); Utah Div. of State Lands v. United States, 482 U.S. 193, 195-98, 107 S.Ct. 2318, 96 L.Ed.2d 162 (1987) (stating that lands underlying navigable waters have historically been considered sovereign lands, and state ownership of them is considered an essential attribute of sovereignty). 33 The Supreme Court cases cited by Respondent are inapposite, and we conclude that granting Islander East's petition for review would not interfere with Connecticut's control over its sovereign lands. The Supreme Court's decisions in Coeur d'Alene and Utah Div. of State Lands involved challenges to state sovereignty over state land: in Coeur d'Alene, a private party brought an action for declaratory and injunctive relief against the State claiming ownership of various submerged lands, 521 U.S. at 261, 117 S.Ct. 2028, while in Utah Div. of State Lands, the State brought an action for declaratory and injunctive relief contending that it was the owner of a lake bed, 482 U.S. at 200, 107 S.Ct. 2318. Here, the grant or denial of a WQC does not involve an issue of land ownership. Islander East's authorization to exercise the power of eminent domain to obtain a right of way for the natural gas pipeline unquestionably comes from the FERC in accordance with its authority under the NGA. Thus, in this case, federal court review involves no infringement of state jurisdiction over its lands. Such review, at most, intrudes upon the State's authority to determine whether the anticipated construction of Islander East's federally approved pipeline on the land at issue satisfies state water quality standards. The exercise of this authority is not a sovereign state right under the Tenth Amendment. Rather, Congress has the authority to regulate discharges into navigable waters under the Commerce Clause, and the State, in this case, exercises only such authority as has been delegated by Congress. Accordingly, there is no basis for Respondent's Tenth Amendment challenge to Islander East's petition for review.
34 Respondent argues that it cannot be sued under NGA section 19(d) because section 19(d) does not state that it is retroactive, and the CTDEP Denial was issued eighteen months before the statute's enactment. We disagree. 35 In Landgraf v. USI Film Prods., the Supreme Court held that [e]ven absent specific legislative authorization, application of new statutes passed after the events in suit is unquestionably proper in many situations. 511 U.S. 244, 273, 114 S.Ct. 1483, 128 L.Ed.2d 229 (1994). The Court explained that statutes applying new jurisdictional rules are typically retroactive because such statutes regulate the conduct of the courts, not the parties: 36 We have regularly applied intervening statutes conferring or ousting jurisdiction, whether or not jurisdiction lay when the underlying conduct occurred or when the suit was filed.... Application of a new jurisdictional rule usually takes away no substantive right but simply changes the tribunal that is to hear the case. Present law normally governs in such situations because jurisdictional statutes speak to the power of the court rather than to the rights or obligations of the parties.... Because rules of procedure regulate secondary rather than primary conduct, the fact that a new procedural rule was instituted after the conduct giving rise to the suit does not make application of the rule ... retroactive. 37 Id. at 274-75, 114 S.Ct. 1483 (internal citations and quotation marks omitted); accord Hughes Aircraft Co. v. United States, 520 U.S. 939, 951, 117 S.Ct. 1871, 138 L.Ed.2d 135 (1997). 38 Respondent is correct in noting that a presumption against retroactivity applies when new provisions affect contractual or property rights. See Landgraf v. USI Film Prods., 511 U.S. at 270-71, 114 S.Ct. 1483 (The largest category of cases in which we have applied the presumption against statutory retroactivity has involved new provisions affecting contractual or property rights, matters in which predictability and stability are of prime importance.). But as discussed above in the context of Respondent's Tenth Amendment challenge, section 19(b) did not affect any of Connecticut's rights— property, contractual, or otherwise. The CTDEP's ability to issue WQCs was conferred by the federal government, which has exclusive control over navigable waterways. CTDEP therefore lacks independent rights in its WQC determinations. 39 Even if the CTDEP did have property or contract rights under the CWA, section 19(d) would not affect its exercise of those rights. The CTDEP is still entitled to make WQC determinations; those determinations simply are now reviewed in federal court as opposed to state court. Thus, we conclude that section 19(d) applies retroactively, and its provision of exclusive jurisdiction to this court controls this petition. 40