No. West Virginia's law is unconstitutional. The Constitution created a big free-trade zone among all the states. Once a product like natural gas is being sold across state lines, it's 'interstate commerce,' and only the federal government can make rules about it. West Virginia can't put up a 'gas wall' at its border to hoard the gas for itself. If it could, then Pennsylvania could keep all its coal and other states could keep their own products, and trade between states would grind to a halt.

Yes. West Virginia's law is perfectly fine. The state is only making a rule about the gas *before* it gets into the big interstate pipelines. A state should be able to control its own natural resources to help its own citizens. It's like a state saying you can't ship unripe oranges out of state; they are just protecting local interests first.

The Court shouldn't even be deciding this case. It's not a real legal dispute yet. The lawsuit was filed before West Virginia actually enforced the law, and the main parties who would be affected—the gas companies—aren't even involved in the lawsuit.

The Court should stay out of this. The lawsuit is premature because nothing bad has actually happened yet. Also, the gas companies aren't here to argue their side. Most importantly, it's not a judge's job to figure out how to divide up a limited supply of gas between several states; that's an incredibly complicated task for experts, not a court.

No, it's not okay. West Virginia's law gets in the way of trade between states, which is against the Constitution. The law would stop a lot of gas from going to Pennsylvania and Ohio, where many people and businesses need it. This would cause big problems. When natural gas is taken out of the ground, it becomes a product that can be sold between states, and only the federal government can make rules about this kind of trade. The Constitution says this to stop states from putting up barriers to trade with each other, even if they're trying to save their resources for themselves. Even though the gas comes from West Virginia, the state can't interfere with the established trade to other states. We understand that West Virginia wants to save its gas, but it can't do it in a way that's unfair to other states. If new rules are needed for sharing gas, they should come from Congress, not from individual states.

I don't think we should be deciding this case. Nothing has actually happened yet because of this new law. We're just guessing about what might happen, and that's not enough for us to step in. We shouldn't stop a state from enforcing its own rules for its gas companies just because another state is worried about what might happen.

I also think we shouldn't decide this case, but for different reasons. First, it's too early - the law hasn't actually hurt anyone yet. Second, the gas companies that would be affected by this law aren't even part of this case, and they should be. Third, even if we wanted to help, figuring out how to fairly share the gas would be too complicated for us to do as a court. That's more of a job for experts who regulate these kinds of things.

I disagree with the majority because I think the state is allowed to make rules about its own gas before it starts traveling to other states. The law deals with the gas while it’s still at home, which is fair since it protects local users. This is different from the majority view, which argues that any law stopping gas from moving between states is wrong. I believe it is okay for the state to act early, because the gas isn’t yet part of the big, interstate market.

Yes. The West Virginia law is an unconstitutional interference with interstate commerce. Natural gas, once reduced to possession, is a lawful article of commerce, and its transmission from one state to another for sale is interstate commerce. The Commerce Clause was intended to prevent states from enacting protectionist measures that burden or obstruct the free flow of commerce among the states. West Virginia's attempt to keep a natural resource for the benefit of its own inhabitants to the detriment of established interstate trade is a prohibited regulation of interstate commerce. Citing West v. Kansas Natural Gas Co., the court reasoned that if a state could hoard one resource, others could hoard theirs, leading to retaliatory embargoes that would halt commerce at state lines, defeating the Constitution's purpose of making the nation a single economic unit.

No. The state law does not violate the Commerce Clause. The statute regulates the natural gas before it has entered the stream of interstate commerce. A state has the power to regulate its own natural products until they are actually started on a journey to a point outside the state. Justice Holmes argued that the state's interest in providing for the welfare of its inhabitants is a legitimate local need that justifies giving them a preference in the enjoyment of its natural advantages. He reasoned that there is no relevant distinction between taxing a resource before it is shipped interstate, which the Court had previously upheld, and regulating its local use in this manner.

The Court should not answer the question because the case presents no justiciable controversy within the Court's original jurisdiction. The suit is a premature attempt to get an abstract ruling on the validity of a statute before it has been enforced. The real dispute is between West Virginia and the private pipeline companies, which are not parties to this suit. A state cannot act as parens patriae (parent of the country) to vindicate the general freedom of interstate commerce on behalf of its citizens in an original action before the Supreme Court.

The Court should dismiss the bills without answering the constitutional question for several reasons. First, the suits are premature as no state official had yet taken any action under the new law, so any claimed injury was merely speculative. Second, there is a fatal lack of necessary parties, namely the twelve pipeline companies whose rights are directly affected. Third, the Court is incapable of granting an appropriate equitable remedy, which would require it to act as an interstate public service commission and apportion gas resources among multiple states—a complex administrative task for which the judiciary is ill-equipped.

Yes. The West Virginia law directly interferes with interstate commerce and is therefore unconstitutional. The act's enforcement would curtail the flow of natural gas to Pennsylvania and Ohio, where it is crucial for public and private consumption, thereby causing significant disruption. Natural gas, when reduced to possession, becomes a commodity in interstate commerce subject to federal regulation. The purpose of the Commerce Clause is to prevent states from erecting barriers to interstate trade, even when motivated by a desire to conserve natural resources for their own citizens. The fact that the gas is a natural product of the state does not justify interfering with established interstate commerce. While West Virginia may have legitimate concerns about conserving its natural resources, it cannot do so by discriminating against interstate commerce. The Court recognizes the complexity of equitably distributing the gas supply but maintains that if regulation is needed, it must come from Congress, not individual states.

No, because the case does not present a justiciable controversy within the original jurisdiction of the Court. The potential failure of companies to comply with contracts due to state law does not constitute a real controversy that warrants judicial intervention. The suits are premature as no action has been taken under the statute yet, and the alleged injuries are speculative. The Court should not enjoin a state from enforcing regulations prescribed for its own public service corporations at the suit of another state.

No, the bills should be dismissed without addressing the constitutional question because the suits are premature and lack necessary parties. The law has not yet shown to have caused harm, and the affected companies are not parties to the case. There are several reasons why the Court should not entertain these suits: 1) There is no justiciable controversy as the alleged harm is speculative and no action has been taken under the statute. 2) The necessary parties, namely the gas companies, are not involved in the suit. 3) The Court lacks the capacity to provide appropriate relief, as equitable distribution of gas resources would require complex determinations better suited to a regulatory agency than a court.

I dissent from the majority opinion because I believe that the State’s regulatory power over its natural resources is not curtailed by the Commerce Clause until those resources are actually introduced into interstate commerce. In my view, controlling natural gas while it is still in the ground—and before it becomes a commodity traded among the States—is a permissible exercise of state authority. This dissent differs from the majority because my colleagues interpret any state regulation affecting the eventual interstate market as unconstitutional, while I maintain that a state’s interest in managing local resources and protecting its consumers is valid when the product has not yet been dispatched for commerce beyond its borders.

Pennsylvania v. West Virginia

Case Podcast

Rule of Law:

The Legal Principle

Facts:

Procedural Posture:

How It Got Here

Issue:

Legal Question at Stake

Opinions:

Majority, Concurrences & Dissents

Analysis:

Why This Case Matters

Gunnerbot