New Jersey v. Delaware

Media Items
Oral Argument
Get Adobe Flash Player
Opinion Announcement
Get Adobe Flash Player
Advocates
H. Bartow Farr, III (on behalf of the Plaintiff)
David C. Frederick (on behalf of the Defendant)
Case Basics
Docket No.: 
134 ORIG
Petitioner: 
New Jersey
Respondent: 
Delaware
Opinion: 
552 U.S. ___ (2008)

Cite this page
The Oyez Project, New Jersey v. Delaware , 552 U.S. ___ (2008)
available at: (http://oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2007/2007_134_orig)
Facts of the Case: 

When British Petroleum (BP) wanted to build a natural gas transfer facility on the New Jersey side of the Delaware River, the State of Delaware objected that the pier construction would require the dredging of underwater lands it considered part of its coastal zone. Delaware denied BP a permit for the construction despite the fact that most of the construction would take place on the New Jersey side of the river. New Jersey granted the permit, arguing that a 1905 compact between the States settling a boundary dispute placed the construction site under New Jersey control. New Jersey filed a claim to settle the dispute and the case went directly to the Court under its original jurisdiction to hear disputes between two States.

Question: 

Does Delaware, under a 1905 compact with New Jersey settling boundary disputes, have the right to refuse to grant a permit for a construction project occurring mainly on New Jersey land but involving underwater land within Delaware's coastal zone?

Conclusion: 

The Court held 6-2 that the 1905 compact between the States did not give New Jersey exclusive control over the construction project. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, writing for the Court, stated that Delaware acted within its authority in denying unreasonable uses of the river and soil within the lands it controls under the compact. Justice John Paul Stevens concurred in, and Justice Antonin Scalia dissented from, the majority's opinion.Justice Stephen G. Breyer recused himself.

Decisions

Decision: 5 votes for Delaware, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

Sort by Ideology

Voted with the majority
Roberts
Wrote a dissent
Stevens
Wrote a dissent
Scalia
Voted with the majority
Kennedy
Voted with the majority
Souter
Voted with the majority
Thomas
Wrote the majority opinion
Ginsburg
Did not participate
Breyer
Voted with the minority, joined Scalia's dissent
Alito

Full Opinion by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg