Robinson Township v. Commonwealth
147 A.3d 536
| Pa. | 2016Background
- Act 13 (2012) overhauled Pennsylvania oil and gas regulation, creating Chapters 32 (Development) and 33 (Local Ordinances). Key contested provisions: §§ 3218.1, 3222.1(b)(10)-(11), 3241, and §§ 3305–3309 (linked to now-invalid §§ 3303–3304).
- Prior Robinson Township decisions: Commonwealth Court (Robinson I) upheld much of Act 13; Pennsylvania Supreme Court (Robinson II) struck §§ 3215(b),(d), 3303, 3304, enjoined application of related enforcement provisions, and remanded to decide severability and discrete constitutional claims (including special‑law and single‑subject challenges).
- On remand the Commonwealth Court (Robinson III) considered whether §§ 3305–3309 were severable, and addressed: (1) severability; (2) whether § 3218.1 (notice only to public water systems) is a forbidden special law; (3) whether §§ 3222.1(b)(10)-(11) (limits on disclosure of fracking trade‑secrets to health professionals) are forbidden special laws or violate the single‑subject rule; and (4) whether § 3241 (corporate power to appropriate subsurface for gas storage) permits unconstitutional private takings.
- The Supreme Court affirms that §§ 3305–3309 are inseverable from the invalidated provisions and upholds that §§ 3222.1(b)(10)-(11) are germane to Act 13’s subject (single‑subject challenge rejected).
- The Court reverses: (a) §§ 3222.1(b)(10) and (b)(11) are special legislation in violation of Article III, § 32 and are enjoined; (b) § 3218.1 is a forbidden special law because excluding private well owners lacks a fair and substantial relationship to Act 13’s objectives — § 3218.1 is stricken but enforcement stayed 180 days for legislative remedy; (c) § 3241 facially permits private takings and violates the Fifth Amendment and Pa. Const. art. I, § 10 and is enjoined.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Severability of §§ 3305–3309 from invalidated §§ 3303–3304 | Citizens: enforcement mechanism was designed to secure statewide uniformity and is inoperable without §§ 3303–3304; cannot be severed. | PUC: §§ 3305–3309 are independent review/enforcement provisions and can function against remaining valid law. | Held: §§ 3305–3309 are inseverable and enjoined. |
| Single‑subject challenge to §§ 3222.1(b)(10) & (b)(11) | Citizens: provisions are unrelated health‑law provisions grafted into an oil‑and‑gas bill, violating Article III, § 3. | Commonwealth: provisions regulate industry disclosure practices and are germane to oil‑and‑gas regulation. | Held: Single‑subject challenge denied; provisions are germane to Act 13. |
| Whether §§ 3222.1(b)(10) & (b)(11) are special laws (Art. III, § 32) | Citizens: the provisions uniquely restrict health professionals’ access to chemical identities, granting the gas industry special treatment and hindering diagnosis, treatment, research. | Commonwealth: limits protect trade secrets, apply uniformly across the industry, and serve legitimate economic interests. | Held: These provisions grant the oil/gas industry unique protections without a sufficient justification and violate Article III, § 32; provisions void and enjoined. |
| Whether § 3218.1 (notice to public but not private wells) is a special law | Citizens: excluding private well owners (3+ million residents) is arbitrary, undermines remediation rights and public‑health objectives. | DEP/Commonwealth Court: public water systems differ (scale, regulation, replaceability) and DEP lacks reliable private‑well registry; notice to public systems serves legitimate state interest. | Held: § 3218.1 is a forbidden special law because excluding private well owners lacks a fair and substantial relationship to Act 13’s purposes; section stricken; enforcement stayed 180 days for legislative fix. |
| Whether § 3241 authorizes private takings in violation of Takings Clauses | Citizens: § 3241 allows non‑public‑utility corporations to appropriate subsurface for storage, effecting private takings without public purpose. | Commonwealth/Commonwealth Court: reading limited to public‑utility entities (public purpose); or if ambiguous, interpret to avoid constitutional doubt. | Held: § 3241 facially authorizes private corporations broadly to condemn subsurface interests and permits takings for private purposes; violates Fifth Amendment and Pa. Const. art. I, § 10; section enjoined. |
Key Cases Cited
- Robinson Twp. v. Commonwealth, 623 Pa. 564, 83 A.3d 901 (Pa. 2013) (plurality opinion striking core Act 13 provisions and remanding severability and discrete constitutional claims)
- Commonwealth v. Neiman, 624 Pa. 53, 84 A.3d 603 (Pa. 2013) (single‑subject analysis; deference to legislature but require germaneness)
- Pennsylvania Turnpike Comm’n v. Commonwealth, 587 Pa. 347, 899 A.2d 1085 (Pa. 2006) (Article III, § 32 standard: classifications must be reasonable and substantially related to legislative object)
- PAGE v. Commonwealth, 583 Pa. 275, 877 A.2d 383 (Pa. 2005) (upholding multifaceted statute under single‑subject rule where provisions are germane)
- Allegheny County v. Monzo, 509 Pa. 26, 500 A.2d 1096 (Pa. 1985) (special‑law doctrine: classifications must not be arbitrary; narrow exceptions described)
- Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (U.S. 2005) (eminent‑domain public‑use analysis and limits on takings for private benefit)
- Reading Area Water Auth. v. Schuylkill Greenway Ass’n, 627 Pa. 357, 100 A.3d 572 (Pa. 2014) (delegation of eminent domain and strict construction in favor of landowners)