62 F.4th 819
3d Cir.2023Background
- Adelphia received FERC approval for an interstate natural gas project and obtained a DEP Plan Approval to build a compressor station in West Rockhill Township, PA.
- The DEP Plan Approval was appealed to the Pennsylvania Environmental Hearing Board (EHB) by the township and residents.
- Adelphia argued before the EHB that 15 U.S.C. § 717r(d)(1) (Natural Gas Act) gives federal courts of appeals exclusive jurisdiction over review of permits and moved to dismiss; the EHB dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
- The Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court reversed, holding the EHB had jurisdiction because EHB proceedings are not “civil actions” under § 717r(d)(1) and the NGA did not preempt the Board’s review.
- Adelphia filed a federal suit seeking declaratory relief and an injunction to bar the EHB from hearing the appeals; the District Court dismissed on issue preclusion grounds.
- The Third Circuit affirmed, holding federal courts must give state-court decisions full faith and credit and that the Commonwealth Court’s decision precluded relitigation in federal court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Adelphia) | Defendant's Argument (State/EHB/Commonwealth Court) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether federal court should be barred by issue preclusion from relitigating state-court ruling on EHB jurisdiction and preemption | Issue preclusion is prudential and should yield to important federal energy questions; federal courts should decide jurisdictional/federal issues | 28 U.S.C. § 1738 requires federal courts to give state-court judgments full faith and credit; state court already decided the issues | Affirmed: Federal courts must apply § 1738 and give preclusive effect to the Commonwealth Court’s ruling |
| Whether § 717r(d)(1) of the Natural Gas Act grants exclusive jurisdiction to federal courts of appeals over review of the DEP Plan Approval (and thus bars EHB review) | § 717r(d)(1) gives federal courts original and exclusive jurisdiction over review of state agency actions issuing permits under federal law, so EHB lacks jurisdiction | § 717r(d)(1) covers only “civil actions” and does not deprive administrative bodies or state courts of their usual review roles; EHB administrative appeals are not civil actions | Held: § 717r(d)(1) does not divest the EHB (or the Commonwealth Court on appeal) of authority to address whether the EHB has jurisdiction; Commonwealth Court correctly held EHB proceedings are not "civil actions" under the statute |
| Whether the Commonwealth Court had jurisdiction to decide appeal from the EHB dismissal (or whether § 717r(d)(1) stripped that jurisdiction) | (raised at oral argument) § 717r(d)(1) divested the Commonwealth Court of jurisdiction to review the EHB’s dismissal | Commonwealth Court review of EHB jurisdiction does not constitute review of an order to issue/deny a permit under § 717r(d)(1) and thus was within its jurisdiction | Held: Commonwealth Court had jurisdiction; § 717r(d)(1) did not strip it of appellate authority to decide the jurisdictional question |
| Whether the elements of Pennsylvania issue preclusion/collateral estoppel were met so as to bar Adelphia’s federal suit | Adelphia argued preemption wasn’t the focus and thus it lacked a full and fair opportunity to litigate in state court | Commonwealth Court actually decided the same preemption and jurisdiction questions; the judgment was final; Adelphia had full opportunity and incentive to litigate | Held: All Pennsylvania collateral‑estoppel elements satisfied—issues identical, final judgment, same parties, full and fair opportunity—so issue preclusion bars relitigation |
Key Cases Cited
- Kremer v. Chem. Constr. Corp., 456 U.S. 461 (state-court judgments get full faith and credit for preclusion in federal court)
- Allen v. McCurry, 449 U.S. 90 (federal courts must give state-court judgments preclusive effect)
- Radzanower v. Touche Ross & Co., 426 U.S. 148 (standard for implied repeal requires irreconcilable conflict)
- Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Epstein, 516 U.S. 367 (stringent standard for finding implied repeal)
- Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc. v. Manning, 578 U.S. 374 (construe federal jurisdictional statutes narrowly)
- Marrese v. Am. Acad. of Orthopaedic Surgeons, 470 U.S. 373 (federal courts look to state law to determine preclusion rules)
- Rue v. K‑Mart Corp., 713 A.2d 82 (Pa. 1998) (Pennsylvania test for issue preclusion elements)
- Hebden v. Workmen’s Comp. Appeal Bd., 632 A.2d 1302 (Pa. 1993) (preclusion bars relitigation of issues actually litigated and necessary to judgment)
- Prusky v. ReliaStar Life Ins. Co., 532 F.3d 252 (3d Cir. 2008) (rejects overly narrow issue characterization to avoid preclusion)
- Reilly v. City of Harrisburg, 858 F.3d 173 (3d Cir. 2017) (merits determine likelihood of success for injunctive relief)