Delaware River Dispute at Supreme Court
Court Alerts
Delaware and New Jersey squared off in the Supreme Court Tuesday over which state gets to decide whether a liquefied natural gas terminal gets built on the Delaware River.
The dispute centers on a proposed LNG terminal that energy giant BP wants to build on the Jersey side of the river. New Jersey officials approved the project, which could bring more than 1,300 construction jobs.
Delaware officials, however, have refused to authorize the construction of a 2,000-foot-long pier, which would be built on the part of the river bottom that belongs to Delaware. Without the pier, the project could not go forward.
New Jersey concedes that Delaware owns the land, but says a century-old agreement allows each state to control piers on its side of the river.
A pier on the New Jersey side that can't stretch onto Delaware territory to reach the main shipping channel is worthless, said H. Bartow Farr, who is representing New Jersey. "That's where the ships are," Farr said.
But David Frederick, representing Delaware, told the justices that decisions on what to build on Delaware land belong to Delaware. "Boundaries matter," Frederick said.
On a practical level, he said, Delaware has only twice in 160 years denied permission to build a pier on the Jersey side of the river and both instances involved LNG facilities.
Up to 150 ships a year would dock at the proposed pier, which would be directly across the river from Claymont, Del. Delaware says the proposal raises safety fears because an estimated 22,000 residents living near the river's main shipping channel would be at risk in case of a major accident. BP said the facility would be able to deliver up to 1.2 billion cubic feet of natural gas a day to the Mid-Atlantic region.
The justices puzzled over the states' authority.
What if a murder occurred on a wharf on the Jersey side that sits on Delaware land, Chief Justice John Roberts wondered. "Is it prosecuted in Delaware or New Jersey?" Roberts asked. New Jersey, Farr said.
Justice David Souter asked Frederick whether Delaware could pass a law saying no more piers could be built on the Jersey side of the river. "It depends," Frederick replied, although he later said such a measure probably would not be upheld.
A court-appointed special master concluded earlier this year that Delaware has the authority to block the pier.
Justice Stephen Breyer is not taking part in the case. He owns $15,000 to $50,000 in BP stock, according to his most recent financial disclosure.
His absence could present a complication if his eight colleagues divide 4 to 4. In most Supreme Court cases, a tie means that a lower court ruling is upheld.
But disputes between states are initially decided by the Supreme Court, not lower courts. What would happen in the event of a tie vote is unclear.
Related listings
-
Court to Release Audio in Guantanmo Case
Court Alerts 11/28/2007[##_1L|1176335041.jpg|width="120" height="84" alt=""|_##]The Supreme Court will hear arguments next week about the rights of prisoners who have been detained at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and will immediately release audio tapes of the proceeding. The cou...
-
New court date set for Vick over dogfighting
Court Alerts 11/28/2007Disgraced football star Michael Vick will stand trial on April 2 on state charges of involvement in dogfighting, a Virginia state court ruled on Tuesday.The trial of the suspended Atlanta Falcons quarterback in a state court is separate from federal ...
-
CA Aims to Appease Death Penalty Appeals Process
Court Alerts 11/21/2007The California Supreme Court proposed a constitutional amendment to change the death penalty appeals process on Monday in an effort to ease the backlog in the state's death penalty system. California has the largest number of inmates on Death Row in ...
Grounds for Divorce in Ohio - Sylkatis Law, LLC
A divorce in Ohio is filed when there is typically “fault” by one of the parties and party not at “fault” seeks to end the marriage. A court in Ohio may grant a divorce for the following reasons:
• Willful absence of the adverse party for one year
• Adultery
• Extreme cruelty
• Fraudulent contract
• Any gross neglect of duty
• Habitual drunkenness
• Imprisonment in a correctional institution at the time of filing the complaint
• Procurement of a divorce outside this state by the other party
Additionally, there are two “no-fault” basis for which a court may grant a divorce:
• When the parties have, without interruption for one year, lived separate and apart without cohabitation
• Incompatibility, unless denied by either party
However, whether or not the the court grants the divorce for “fault” or not, in Ohio the party not at “fault” will not get a bigger slice of the marital property.