Scott Sonda v. West Virginia Oil & Gas Conservation Commission, 92 F.4th 213

Plaintiffs Sonda and Corwin, mineral interest owners in West Virginia, challenged the constitutionality of Senate Bill 694 (SB 694), enacted in June 2022.
SB 694 allows for the unitization of mineral interests for horizontal well drilling—even over the objections of nonconsenting owners—and changes the method for calculating compensation to those owners.
Plaintiffs argue the law dilutes their mineral interests and constitutes an unconstitutional taking without just compensation and a deprivation of due process.
The West Virginia Oil and Gas Conservation Commission moved to dismiss, raising arguments including lack of plaintiff standing and Eleventh Amendment immunity, and argued the claims failed on the merits.
The district court dismissed three counts, but abstained from deciding the core federal constitutional claims under the Pullman doctrine, staying those claims pending potential state court proceedings.
On appeal, the Fourth Circuit reviewed whether abstention was proper and whether the district court should have first addressed subject-matter jurisdiction (standing).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does SB 694 violate the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments by effecting a taking without compensation or due process?	SB 694 forces development without consent, reduces compensation, and changes property rights.	Plaintiffs lack standing; the Commission is immune, and no constitutional claims are stated.	Not decided; remanded for the district court to address standing first.
Was Pullman abstention appropriate to defer to state courts before ruling on federal constitutional claims?	Abstention would delay relief; federal claims are properly before the district court.	Abstention justified to allow state law issues to be settled first.	Pullman abstention was improper; district court abused its discretion by abstaining without identifying any unclear/dispositive state law issue.
Does the court have jurisdiction to review the abstention stay order?	No, the stay is not a final appealable order.	Yes, the order effectively put parties out of federal court.	The stay/abstention order is a final, appealable order under Moses H. Cone and Idlewild.
Did the district court err by not deciding standing before abstaining?	The plaintiffs have standing due to direct injury from SB 694.	Standing must be determined; insufficient facts for standing exist.	The court must address standing (subject-matter jurisdiction) first before reaching the merits or abstaining.

Railroad Comm’n of Texas v. Pullman Co., 312 U.S. 496 (1941) (establishes the Pullman abstention doctrine, allowing federal courts to defer to state courts on unclear state law issues)
Moses H. Cone Mem’l Hosp. v. Mercury Constr. Corp., 460 U.S. 1 (1983) (clarifies when abstention/stay orders are appealable as final decisions)
Quackenbush v. Allstate Ins. Co., 517 U.S. 706 (1996) (explains standards for abstention and appealability of stay orders)
Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. 264 (1821) (establishes the duty of federal courts to exercise jurisdiction when conferred)
Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83 (1998) (federal courts must ensure subject-matter jurisdiction/standing before considering merits)
Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 578 U.S. 330 (2016) (sets forth Article III standing requirements)