Penneast Pipeline Co. v. New Jersey
141 S. Ct. 2244 · Decided June 29, 2021 · Supreme Court of the United States
Record summary. This page is generated from the Supreme Court Database’s coded data about the case. It describes who decided what, not the Court’s reasoning. Read the opinion itself before relying on it. Not legal advice.
At a glance
Penneast Pipeline Co. v. New Jersey was decided on June 29, 2021 by a vote of 5–4. The Court reversed the lower court's decision and remanded the case. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote the opinion of the Court. SCDB classifies its main issue as “Due process, takings clause” in the Due Process area.
Read the opinion
- CourtListener (Free Law Project) — opinion text
- Supreme Court of the United States — slip opinions, October Term 2020
- Supreme Court of the United States — docket 19-1039
Case details
- Citations
- 141 S. Ct. 2244 · 210 L. Ed. 2d 624 · 2021 U.S. LEXIS 3564
- Docket number
- 19-1039
- Decided
- June 29, 2021
- Argued
- April 28, 2021
- Court era
- Roberts Court
- Decision type
- Opinion of the Court (orally argued)
- Disposition
- Reversed and remanded
- Outcome for petitioner
- The petitioning party received a favorable disposition
- Vote
- 5–4
- Majority opinion
- John G. Roberts Jr.
- Opinion assigned by
- John G. Roberts Jr.
- How the case arrived
- Certiorari
- Issue (SCDB)
- Due process, takings clause
- Issue area
- Due Process
- Legal provision
- Fifth Amendment (takings clause)
- Type of law
- Constitutional amendment
- Decision direction (SCDB)
- Liberal what this means
How the Justices voted
| Justice | Vote | Separate writing |
|---|---|---|
| Justice Clarence Thomas | Dissent | |
| Justice Stephen G. Breyer | Majority | |
| Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. | Majority | Wrote an opinion |
| Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. | Majority | |
| Justice Sonia Sotomayor | Majority | |
| Justice Elena Kagan | Dissent | |
| Justice Neil M. Gorsuch | Dissent | Wrote an opinion |
| Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh | Majority | |
| Justice Amy Coney Barrett | Dissent | Wrote an opinion |
Full case caption
Penneast Pipeline Co. v. New Jersey
SCDB identifiers: case 2020-068, docket 2020-068-01.
Related decisions
Other cases on “Due process, takings clause”
- Pakdel v. City and County of San FranciscoLaw held unconstitutional
- Cedar Point Nursery v. HassidLaw held unconstitutional
- Tyler v. Hennepin CountyLaw held unconstitutional
- Knick v. Township of ScottAltered precedent
- Timbs v. Indiana
- Sheetz v. County of El Dorado
Cases on the same legal provision: Fifth Amendment (takings clause)
- Agins et Ux. v. City of Tiburon
- Gurley v. Rhoden
- City of Pittsburgh v. Alco Parking Corp.
- United States v. Fuller et Ux.
- United States v. Grand River Dam Authority
- General Box Co. v. United States
Same Term, same area (Due Process)
- Ford Motor Company v. Montana Eighth Judicial District Court
- Cedar Point Nursery v. HassidLaw held unconstitutional
- Pakdel v. City and County of San FranciscoLaw held unconstitutional
- Lombardo v. St. Louis
Source: Supreme Court Database, 2026 Release 01 (data file dated September 8, 2026). Imported into CaseTrail November 5, 2026. Coverage: decisions from the 1946 through 2025 Terms. Methodology · Report an error