Home › Case briefs › Constitutional Law

Pennsylvania v. Union Gas Co.

Supreme Court of the United States · Constitutional Law

Constitutional LawEleventh AmendmentState Sovereign ImmunityCommerce ClauseCERCLAEleventh Amendmentstate sovereign immunityCommerce Clause

Facts

Union Gas's predecessors operated a coal gasification plant near Brodhead Creek in Pennsylvania for about 50 years, leaving coal tar in the ground. After Pennsylvania acquired easements along the creek and excavated during flood-control work in 1980, a large deposit of coal tar was struck and began seeping into the creek, leading EPA to declare the site the Nation's first emergency Superfund site. Pennsylvania and the Federal Government cleaned up the site, and the Federal Government reimbursed Pennsylvania $720,000 in cleanup costs. When the United States sued Union Gas under CERCLA to recover those costs, Union Gas filed a third-party complaint against Pennsylvania, alleging the Commonwealth was an "owner or operator" of the site and had caused or contributed to the release.

Issue

Whether CERCLA, as amended by SARA, clearly authorizes suits for money damages against a State in federal court, and if so, whether Congress has constitutional authority under the Commerce Clause to subject States to such suits notwithstanding Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Rule

Congress may subject States to suits for money damages in federal court when legislating under the Commerce Clause, provided Congress expresses its intent to abrogate state immunity with unmistakable clarity. CERCLA, as amended by SARA, satisfies that clear-statement requirement by expressly including States as liable entities and subjecting them to the statute in the same manner and to the same extent as nongovernmental entities, including liability under 42 U.S.C. § 9607.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Congress enacts the Hazard Transit Cleanup Act to address interstate chemical spills from rail yards and ports. The statute, passed under the Commerce Clause, defines "person" to include States and provides that any State that causes or contributes to a release "shall be subject to this chapter in the same manner and to the same extent, both procedurally and substantively, as any nongovernmental entity, including liability for response costs." A freight company in Ohio sues the State of Michigan in federal court for contribution after paying for cleanup of a contaminated shipping terminal in Toledo.

Is Michigan's Eleventh Amendment defense likely to succeed?

Explanation. Under the lead opinion, Congress may subject States to suits for money damages in federal court when legislating pursuant to the Commerce Clause if it makes that intent unmistakably clear in the statutory text. Language expressly including States and subjecting them to the statute "in the same manner and to the same extent" as nongovernmental entities, including damages liability, satisfies the clear-statement requirement. (Derived from Pennsylvania v. Union Gas Co. (n.d.).)