The Supreme Court is weighing whether ranchers must pay six-figure legal bills after a pipeline used federal-style eminent domain to take their land.
Story Snapshot
- The Court heard a North Dakota case over $300,000-plus in legal fees after a pipeline easement fight.
- The question: does state law or the federal constitutional minimum set “just compensation” in these takings?
- The Eighth Circuit said attorney fees are not part of Fifth Amendment compensation, wiping out the award.
- Several courts disagree, making this a national property-rights showdown, not a one-off dispute.
What The Case Is Really About: Who Pays To Fight A Taking
North Dakota ranchers spent three years fighting over the price of a pipeline easement, then settled the value but kept battling over who pays the lawyers. A federal district court, applying North Dakota condemnation law, awarded attorney fees to the ranchers. The total request topped $380,000, with about $332,000 in fees and more than $50,000 in costs. The pipeline company appealed. The case now turns on a simple question with big stakes: who bears the cost of getting to fair pay when a taking is forced.
The Natural Gas Act lets private pipeline companies use eminent domain when they hold a federal certificate. The Act is silent on how to measure “just compensation.” The district court treated that silence as a gap to be filled by state law. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit disagreed. It held the Fifth Amendment supplies the rule and does not cover attorney fees, so the fee award must go. That ruling put landowners on the hook for their own legal bills.
The Eighth Circuit’s Rule And The Clash With Other Courts
The Eighth Circuit reasoned that when Congress delegates eminent domain to a pipeline, the company stands in the federal government’s shoes. Under long-standing precedent, federal takings do not include attorney fees unless Congress says so. Because the Natural Gas Act does not mention fees, the court said the constitutional floor controls and fees are out. Other courts, however, have allowed state law to define compensation in private Natural Gas Act condemnations, creating a split that drew Supreme Court review.
The conflict matters well beyond one ranch. State condemnation laws often protect owners by shifting fees when a taking forces them to court. That rule helps level the field against well-funded companies. The Eighth Circuit’s approach strips that protection when the taker uses a federal delegation. The result is a uniform rule that is uniform only in one direction: owners lose the state-law safety net, and pipelines face fewer costs when they push for lower valuations.
Dollars And Fairness: The Concrete Hit To Family Landowners
The record shows a concrete and large bill: $332,274.96 in fees and $50,650.86 in costs and expenses, for $383,375.76 total. The company fought the amount and claimed a lower figure would be reasonable, highlighting a dispute over billing and necessity. But the deeper point is not a line-item debate. It is whether the law treats those expenses as part of making a landowner whole after a forced taking, especially when the company chose to litigate value for years and the owner had to respond.
Property rights mean little if families must drain savings to defend them. Ranchers cannot move a pasture. When a pipeline cuts across private land, the fight is about fair value and the cost to prove it. North Dakota’s rule recognizes that reality in state cases. The Supreme Court now decides if that protection travels with private takers who rely on federal power, or if the Fifth Amendment baseline always displaces it when the taker is clothed with federal authority.
What Each Side Is Telling The Justices
The ranchers argue the Natural Gas Act’s silence on compensation invites courts to use state law, as the district court did. They point to decisions from other circuits that let state rules guide these private condemnations, which would include fee-shifting in states that provide it. They warn that, without fees, owners will settle cheap or face ruin to get fair pay. That risk chills the right to contest low offers and erodes the promise of just compensation in real life.
North Dakota ranchers fought a pipeline company with eminent domain power for the fair value of their land. But an appeals court said the company did not have to pay the ranchers’ attorney fees.
That places property owners in a Catch-22 when it comes to getting a fair price:… pic.twitter.com/YQr9JsZcQH
— Institute for Justice (@IJ) November 5, 2026
The company argues that delegation makes it functionally the federal government for compensation. It says the Fifth Amendment sets the limit and excludes attorney fees unless Congress speaks clearly, which the Natural Gas Act does not do. It also urges a single national rule to avoid a patchwork. That uniformity, however, comes at the landowner’s expense when state protections vanish at the courthouse door. The Justices must choose which value controls: federal uniformity or state-backed property safeguards.
Why This Decision Matters To Conservative Readers
Limited government starts with strong property rights. When private firms wield federal-style power to take land, owners should not be punished for standing up for fair value. A rule that blocks state-law fee protection shifts costs from pipelines to families. That tilts the field against rural Americans who feed and fuel the nation. The Supreme Court’s answer will signal whether states can keep those common-sense guardrails in place when Washington’s delegated power crosses a fence line.
Sources:
justice.gov, ecf.ca8.uscourts.gov, dorsey.com
