The Eleventh Circuit's short opinion (really short - 1.5 pages) in Sabal Trail Transmission, LLC v. 3-921 Acres of Land, No. 22-10435 (July 25, 2023), is straightforward: to resolve whether a Florida property owner subject to a private condemnor taking under the federal Natural Gas Act has a property right in attorneys fees and costs, the court applied a recently-decided circuit panel opinion that held yes:
The Natural Gas Act authorizes private entities who have received a certificate of public convenience and necessity to acquire property “by the exercise of the right of eminent domain.” 15 U.S.C. § 717f(h). Sabal Trail Transmission, LLC, invoked this power of eminent domain to acquire easements to build a pipeline on land owned by Sunderman Groves, Inc. In the condemnation proceeding, the district court determined that the Act incorporates state eminent domain law, and it consequently applied Florida law to grant attorneys’ fees, costs, and prejudgment interest to Sunderman Groves. Sabal Trail appeals these awards, arguing that the district court should have applied federal law instead.
After this panel heard oral argument, a different panel of our Court decided a nearly identical case that arose out of Sabal Trail’s use of the eminent domain power to build this same pipeline. See Sabal Trail Transmission, LLC v. 18.27 Acres of Land, 59 F.4th 1158, 1160–62 (11th Cir. 2023). That panel determined that proceedings under § 717f(h) must look to state law to determine the measure of compensation. Id. at 1175.
It is “firmly established” that “each succeeding panel is bound by the holding of the first panel to address an issue of law, unless and until that holding is overruled en banc, or by the Supreme Court.” United States v. Hogan, 986 F.2d 1364, 1369 (11th Cir. 1993). This Court’s prior construction of the Natural Gas Act is now the law in this Circuit, and it conclusively resolves this appeal. We therefore AFFIRM the district court.
Slip op. at 2-3.
As we reported here, the issue is whether federal or state law applies in these cases. The big reason why the question of whose law applies is that under the Fifth Amendment, "just compensation" does not include attorneys' and other fees, while under the Florida Constitution's "full compensation" provision (which we noted here), a property owner may recover fees and costs.
But don't stop with the per curiam opinion, and please read on, because the interesting part of the decision is the concurring opinion of Judge Grant, which argues that the earlier panel got it wrong, and the federal "just compensation" standard should apply, not Florida's definition of property:
Like at least one member of that panel, I think Georgia Power was wrongly decided. See 59 F.4th at 1175 (Jordan, J., concurring). But unlike the panel, I do not think that our prior-panel precedent rule required us to extend Georgia Power’s incorrect reasoning about the Federal Power Act to the Natural Gas Act. See id. at 1168–69. I write to emphasize that, when facing similar interpretive questions about other statutes, we should not overread or further extend these two precedents—the compensation standards of the Fifth Amendment apply to private delegations of the federal eminent domain power unless Congress says otherwise.
Concurring opn. at 1-2.
Sabal Trail Transmission, LLC v. 3.921 Acres of Land in Lake County, Florida, No. 22-10435 (11th Cir. July...
