The Sunoco Pipeline litigation to obtain Pennsylvania eminent domain power has consistently resulted in Sunoco arguing that Mariner East 2 is interstate and intrastate. However, the federal regulations concerning such hazardous liquids pipelines state that a pipeline is interstate or intrastate, but not both. Application of the federal regulations strongly appear to define the proposed pipeline as interstate only, so that eminent domain power would be denied per exclusive federal jurisdiction (49 CFR Part 195 – Appendix A) and the definitions of Interstate pipeline and Intrastate pipeline (49 CFR 195.2).
Pennsylvania property owners possess constitutional rights which protect private property. Faherty Law Firm represents property owners across the State in protection of property rights threatened by eminent domain. Sunoco Pipeline efforts to obtain eminent domain power for Mariner East 2 were defeated via Mike Faherty’s representation in Sunoco v. Loper. Sunoco then proposed onloading and offloading locations in Pennsylvania. However, a federal regulation, 49 C.F.R. Part 195 – Appendix A, states that the jurisdiction is exclusive federal jurisdiction. Judges, particularly appellate judges, may decide that exclusive federal jurisdiction prevents Sunoco from obtaining eminent domain power. Mike Faherty argued that issue on March 9, 2016 before the Commonwealth Court. A decision on this expedited appeal is expected in May or June.
Landowners lose before judge rules
Witten by: Candy Woodall and Colin Deppen | Patriot-News
The woods that gave Pennsylvania its name have become battlegrounds in pipeline wars. These are passionately fought legal cases that pit rural landowners against huge corporations tasked with revolutionizing […]