Bona Law Files Amicus Brief in U.S. Supreme Court Supporting Property Owners in Natural Gas Act Condemnation Case
August 20, 2026
Bona Law filed an amicus curiae brief in the United States Supreme Court on August 20, 2026 on behalf of property owners whose family land was condemned for an interstate natural-gas pipeline that argues property owners should be compensated for their litigation costs when their land is taken by eminent domain. The case, Hoffmann v. WBI Energy Transmission, Inc., No. 25-159, seeks clarity on the question of whether just compensation in condemnation cases brought by private companies under the Natural Gas Act should be determined by reference to state law. The Supreme Court granted a petition for writ of certiorari and is currently considering the merits of the case.
Bona Law represents amici curiae Gary R. Erb and Lynda Like, Pennsylvania property owners whose family land was condemned for an interstate natural-gas pipeline, in support of the petitioners. Luke Hasskamp serves as counsel of record, joined by Jarod Bona, Ruth Glaeser, Aaron Gott, Aaron Lawrence, and Sabri Siraj.
The Case Before the Supreme Court
The Natural Gas Act authorizes qualifying private pipeline companies to condemn property needed for interstate natural-gas infrastructure. But the statute does not say how compensation for that property should be measured. That silence has divided the federal courts of appeals.
The petitioners are North Dakota property owners whose land was subject to condemnation after they and WBI Energy Transmission could not agree on compensation. After several years of litigation, the parties settled the value of the easements but reserved the question whether WBI was also responsible for the owners’ attorney fees and expenses.
North Dakota law allows reasonable attorneys’ fees and expenses in condemnation proceedings. The Natural Gas Act, however, says nothing about the measure of compensation. And, under the Fifth Amendment alone, litigation expenses generally are not part of the constitutional minimum of just compensation when the United States condemns property. But the Fifth Amendment standard is applicable to the federal government, not necessarily private parties delegated authority through a congressional act. When Congress enacts such a law, like the Natural Gas Act, courts typically look to state law to fill any gaps.
The district court held that state law supplied the compensation rule and awarded the landowners their fees and expenses. The Eighth Circuit reversed. It reasoned that the Natural Gas Act delegates “the entire federal eminent domain power, not just some diluted form of it,” leaving “no gaps” for state law to fill, and held that the narrower federal compensation rule controlled.
That decision expressly departed from the rule applied by the Third, Fifth, Sixth, and Eleventh Circuits, which look to state law to supply the compensation rule in private Natural Gas Act condemnations. The Supreme Court granted review to decide whether, in private condemnations under the Act, just compensation should be determined by reference to state law.
The Brief’s Argument
Bona Law’s brief makes a straightforward point: the Natural Gas Act delegates the power to condemn, but it does not hand a private company every advantage the federal government enjoys when it condemns in its own name.
Congress gave qualifying certificate holders authority to acquire necessary rights-of-way through eminent domain. It did not specify the measure of compensation. And courts have long distinguished the delegated condemnation power from other attributes the federal government possesses as sovereign. Private pipeline companies do not, for example, receive the federal government’s statutory “quick-take” authority merely because they possess delegated eminent-domain power.
That distinction matters because the Eighth Circuit treated WBI as effectively stepping into the federal government’s shoes for purposes of compensation. Bona Law argues that the statute does not support that conclusion. Delegating a governmental power to a private party does not automatically transfer every sovereign advantage associated with the government’s own exercise of that power.
Further, the Act’s silence does not automatically make the Fifth Amendment the exclusive rule of compensation. Under the Supreme Court’s decisions in Wallis v. Pan American Petroleum Corp. and United States v. Kimbell Foods, Inc., state law should not be displaced without a specifically demonstrated, significant conflict with an identifiable federal policy. General appeals to national uniformity, or the possibility that state law may require a private condemner to pay more, are not enough.
Bona Law urged the Court to reject the Eighth Circuit’s “no gaps” reasoning and follow the approach taken by the Third, Fifth, Sixth, and Eleventh Circuits: where Congress has supplied the condemnation power but has not prescribed the measure of compensation, state law supplies the rule unless its application would significantly conflict with federal law.
The case also reflects a recurring issue in Bona Law’s litigation: the legal consequences of allowing private actors to exercise government-conferred power—which often arise in antitrust cases involving the state action immunity defense. Delegating a governmental power does not automatically transfer every immunity, privilege, or litigation advantage the government itself possesses. Courts should instead examine what Congress actually authorized.
Supporting the Institute for Justice and Its Clients
Bona Law’s amicus brief supports the property owners represented by the Institute for Justice, one of the nation’s leading public-interest law firms. IJ litigates constitutional cases involving property rights, economic liberty, free speech, and other limits on government power.
Bona Law and IJ have a connection extending back many years. Bona Law founder Jarod Bona served as a law clerk for IJ during the summer between his first and second years at Harvard Law School. Bona Law and IJ have also worked together in other litigation, including Pena v. City of Los Angeles, a federal takings case brought on behalf of a business owner whose shop was destroyed during an LAPD SWAT operation.
Hoffmann presents another important question about the limits of government power and the protections afforded to property owners when private companies exercise authority delegated by the government.
Bona Law maintains an active appellate practice in the federal courts of appeals, state appellate and supreme courts, and the United States Supreme Court, and much of that work extends well beyond amicus briefs. We argue our own cases: the lawyers who develop the issues, build the record, and write the briefs are the same lawyers who stand at the lectern. Because many of the most consequential appellate decisions are made early, through how issues are framed and rulings preserved long before judgment, we often work alongside trial teams from the outset rather than waiting until an appeal is underway. If you are considering an appeal, need appellate counsel involved earlier in your case, or are weighing an amicus brief in a significant matter, please contact us.