Justices Question State Law Shield in Federal Land Seizure Case

North Dakota landowners who won a federal land seizure case now face a $380,000 legal bill that could vanish if the Supreme Court sides with the federal government over the state. The case, argued in Washington on Monday, centers on whether a private pipeline company acting under federal eminent domain power must pay the landowners' legal fees under North Dakota law.

The dispute began when the pipeline company offered what the landowners described as a low-ball payment for their property. The landowners sued and prevailed, but the victory came at a steep cost. They spent $380,000 in legal fees during the multi-year battle. North Dakota law requires the pipeline company to cover those fees, but the federal government argues that federal law overrides the state statute in this context.

Bob McNamara, representing the landowners, told the court that private companies wielding eminent domain power must respect state protections for property owners. McNamara stated, "What we’re saying is that when states try to protect private property owners, private companies have to respect those laws. Even private companies wielding the power of eminent domain."

The justices displayed skepticism toward that position. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson noted that federal law generally governs federal condemnation actions. She said, "unless Congress says state law is applicable, when you have federal condemnation by any actor, you would have federal law be the applicable rule."

If the court rules for the federal government, landowners in similar situations would lose the incentive to pursue fair payment. They would risk losing any potential payout to court fees. If they rule for the state, the pipeline company must pay the $380,000 in fees incurred by the landowners.