Pennsylvania v. Union Gas Co.

Pennsylvania v. Union Gas Co.
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued October 31, 1988 Decided June 15, 1989
Full case name	Pennsylvania v. Union Gas Company
Citations	491 U.S. 1 ( more ) 109 S.Ct. 2273, 105 L.Ed.2d 1
Argument	Oral argument
Case history
Prior	832 F.2d 1343 (CA3 1987), cert granted, 485 U.S. 958 (1988)
Holding
The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA), as amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA), clearly expresses an intent to render states liable for damages in federal court. Furthermore, Congress may constitutionally render states liable for damages in federal court when legislating under its Article I powers.
Court membership
Chief Justice William Rehnquist Associate Justices William J. Brennan Jr.  · Byron White Thurgood Marshall  · Harry Blackmun John P. Stevens  · Sandra Day O'Connor Antonin Scalia  · Anthony Kennedy
Case opinions
Majority	Brennan (Parts I and II), joined by Marshall, Blackmun, Stevens, Scalia
Plurality	Brennan (Part III), joined by Marshall, Blackmun, Stevens
Concurrence	Stevens
Concur/dissent	White, joined by Rehnquist, O'Connor, Kennedy (Part I)
Concur/dissent	Scalia, joined by Rehnquist, O'Connor, Kennedy (Parts II, III, and IV)
Dissent	O'Connor
Overruled by
Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida (1996)

Pennsylvania v. Union Gas Co., 491 U.S. 1 (1989), was a 1989 United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA) rendered states liable for monetary damages in federal court. Furthermore, the Court held that Congress could constitutionally abrogate the immunity from suit conferred to each state by the Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution, provided that it legislated under its Article I powers. This decision was overruled seven years later in Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida (1996). ^[1]

Decision

In this case, a four-justice plurality held that Congress could abrogate Eleventh Amendment immunity specifically when it acted under its Commerce Clause authority, and Justice Byron White agreed that Congress could abrogate this immunity, but did not join the plurality because he disagreed with its stated reasoning.

Reactions

When the Court decided Union Gas, commentators expressed disappointment at its failure to definitively resolve the question of whether Congress could abrogate states' immunity under the Commerce Clause. ^{[2] [3]} Law professor John M. Rogers also criticized Justice White for voting to affirm the lower court's decision despite arguing at length that it was incorrect. ^[4]

References

1. "Abrogation of State Sovereign Immunity". LII / Legal Information Institute. Retrieved 2025-07-22.
2. Sears, Letitia (1989-01-01). "Pennsylvania v. Union Gas: Congressional Abrogation of State Sovereign Immunity Under the Commerce Clause, or, Living with Hans". Fordham Law Review. 58 (3): 513.
3. Boren, Donald (1991). "Congressional Power to Grant Federal Courts Jurisdiction Over States: The Impact of Pennsylvania v. Union Gas". Akron Law Review. 24 (1). ISSN   0002-371X.
4. Rogers, John (1991-01-01). ""I Vote This Way Because I'm Wrong": The Supreme Court Justice as Epimenides". Law Faculty Scholarly Articles.

External links

• Text of Pennsylvania v. Union Gas Co. is available from: Cornell Justia Library of Congress Oyez (oral argument audio)