Supreme Court to weigh whether state law sets compensation for pipeline eminent‑domain cases

The U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments next week in Hoffmann v. WBI Energy Transmission, Inc., a case that could shape how compensation is calculated when a private pipeline company uses eminent domain to acquire land for an interstate natural‑gas line.

The dispute centers on land owned by the Hoffmann family in North Dakota. WBI Energy Transmission, holding a federal certificate of public convenience and necessity under the Natural Gas Act, seeks to take a right‑of‑way through the property. The question before the Court is whether the amount of “just compensation” required by the Fifth Amendment should be measured by North Dakota law, which may include attorney’s fees, or by a uniform federal standard.

What the law says today

Under the Natural Gas Act, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission can approve pipeline projects and grant the holder the power of eminent domain when negotiations fail. Federal courts have traditionally required the condemning party to pay just compensation, but state courts must provide at least that amount and sometimes more.

The Hoffmanns argue that because the condemnation power is delegated to a private company, state law should apply, citing cases like United States v. Kimbell Foods. WBI and the federal government contend that Congress intended a single federal compensation rule, pointing to the General Bridge Act of 1946, which explicitly tied compensation to state law, and to United States v. Miller, where the Court applied federal standards under a similar statute.

Why attorney’s fees matter

The case could turn on whether courts will award attorney’s fees in a federal eminent‑domain action. The Supreme Court has a clear‑statement rule that fees are not awarded unless Congress explicitly provides for them. Since the Natural Gas Act is silent on fees, many justices may be reluctant to add that cost to the compensation package.

Practical impact for landowners and pipeline companies

For ordinary landowners, the outcome will determine whether they can recover only the market value of their property or also the cost of legal representation. If the Court adopts a federal‑only standard, landowners in states like North Dakota may receive lower payouts, while pipeline firms could face fewer financial surprises.

Pipeline companies will watch the decision closely because it affects the predictability of project costs. A uniform federal rule would simplify budgeting, whereas a patchwork of state standards could increase litigation and expense.

When to seek legal help

Anyone facing an eminent‑domain action for a pipeline or other federal project should consider consulting an attorney early. Understanding whether state or federal compensation rules apply can affect settlement negotiations and the overall financial outcome.

This article is general information based on SCOTUSblog and court or agency records available at publication time. It is not legal advice; laws and deadlines differ by state and by case. Published November 4, 2026.