Hoffmann v. WBI Energy Transmission, Inc.
No. 25-159 · October Term 2026 · Economic Activity · argument November 9, 2026
Expected vote 6–3 for Hoffmann. Chance of a unanimous ruling 45%.
Before oral argument the model knows only the case's structure: the issue area, which way the lower court ruled, and each justice's record on both. That is not enough to separate cases, so every unargued case carries the petitioner's base rate. The transcript features arrive within days of argument and the number becomes a call.
The case
Leonard W. Hoffmann and other landowners are suing WBI Energy Transmission, Inc., a private natural gas company, over the amount of compensation owed for an easement taken to build a pipeline. The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that only the Fifth Amendment's minimum compensation is required, diverging from several other circuits that apply state law. The Supreme Court must now decide whether state law should determine just compensation in private condemnations under the Natural Gas Act.
- Does the Natural Gas Act permit private companies to condemn land with compensation determined solely by the Fifth Amendment's minimum, or should state law be applied?
- The resolution of this question will determine whether landowners can recover attorney's fees and other litigation costs, which are often allowed under state law but not under the federal constitutional minimum.
- This case addresses a circuit split, with the Eighth Circuit's ruling conflicting with the Third, Fifth, Sixth, and Eleventh Circuits on the application of state versus federal law in these condemnation cases.
AI brief written by gemini-2.5-flash from the questions presented and the Oyez facts on 2026-10-02. Commentary only; it is not an input to the model.
Question presented, as filed
The Natural Gas Act authorizes private companies to condemn land in order to build certain natural gas infrastructure, but it says nothing about how to determine the amount of just compensation owed for the property taken. 15 U.S.C. § 717f. The Third, Fifth, Sixth, and Eleventh Circuits have all held that compensation awards in private condemnations under the Natural Gas Act must therefore be determined by reference to state law, which often mandates higher compensation than the floor set by the Fifth Amendment. In this case, the Eighth Circuit expressly split with its sister circuits and instead held that the Natural Gas Act permits only the constitutional minimum of compensation required by the Fifth Amendment. The question presented is: In private condemnations under the Natural Gas Act, should just compensation be determined by reference to state law?
Facts of the case (Oyez)
WBI Energy Transmission, Inc. is a private natural gas company that holds a federal certificate authorizing it to use eminent domain to build and operate a natural gas pipeline. WBI used that authority to condemn an easement across ranchland in McKenzie County, North Dakota, owned by Leonard Hoffmann, Margaret Hoffmann, Denae Hoffmann, Rocky & Jonilla Farms, LLP, and Randall Stevenson. After roughly three years of litigation over the value of the taken property, the parties settled that question but expressly reserved the issue of whether the landowners could recover their attorney’s fees and litigation costs. The landowners argued that North Dakota law governed compensation and that state law entitles condemnees to recover those costs. WBI argued that federal law controlled and capped compensation at the constitutional minimum set by the Fifth Amendment, which does not include attorney’s fees. The district court agreed with the landowners, applied a federal choice-of-law framework, concluded that North Dakota law governed, and ordered WBI to reimburse the landowners $383,375.76 in fees and litigation expenses. WBI appealed, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reversed, holding that private companies exercising eminent domain power under the Natural Gas Act stand in the federal government’s shoes and owe only the constitutional minimum of just compensation under the Fifth Amendment, expressly splitting with the Third, Fifth, Sixth, and Eleventh Circuits.
The nine
Each justice's predicted vote and the record behind it: how often they have voted for the petitioner overall, in Economic Activity cases, and when the lower court ruled conservative; and, once argued, how many questions they put to each side (the side a justice questions more tends to lose their vote). The note under each row is the AI brief's reading, commentary rather than model input.
| Justice | Predicted | Overall | This issue | Lower court conservative | At argument |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
John G. Roberts Republican appointee · since OT2005 Chief Justice Roberts often emphasizes textualism and the original public meaning of statutes, which could lead him to scrutinize the Natural Gas Act's silence on compensation beyond the Fifth Amendment. However, he also values judicial restraint and avoiding broad pronouncements that could disrupt established federal regulatory schemes. | 63% Hoffmann | 68% for the petitioner · 1,512 votes | 68% Economic Activity · 328 votes | 61% lower court conservative · 734 votes | not yet argued |
Clarence Thomas Republican appointee · since OT1991 Justice Thomas is a strong proponent of originalism and textualism, and he often favors limiting federal power and deferring to state law where federal statutes are silent. His jurisprudence frequently supports property rights and could lead him to favor interpretations that provide greater compensation to landowners. | 63% Hoffmann | 59% for the petitioner · 2,801 votes | 62% Economic Activity · 555 votes | 43% lower court conservative · 1,365 votes | not yet argued |
Samuel A. Alito Republican appointee · since OT2005 Justice Alito generally takes a conservative approach, often emphasizing property rights and a strict reading of statutes. He may be inclined to interpret the Natural Gas Act in a way that protects landowners' interests, potentially by allowing state law to supplement federal compensation standards. | 63% Hoffmann | 62% for the petitioner · 1,469 votes | 67% Economic Activity · 322 votes | 48% lower court conservative · 722 votes | not yet argued |
Sonia Sotomayor Democratic appointee · since OT2009 Justice Sotomayor often considers the practical impact of legal decisions on individuals and communities. Her focus on fairness and protecting individual rights could lead her to favor an interpretation that provides more comprehensive compensation to landowners, potentially through the application of state law. | 66% Hoffmann | 61% for the petitioner · 1,192 votes | 58% Economic Activity · 264 votes | 76% lower court conservative · 594 votes | not yet argued |
Elena Kagan Democratic appointee · since OT2010 Justice Kagan often seeks to understand congressional intent and the practical implications of statutory interpretation. She might consider the broader context of federal eminent domain power and how different interpretations would affect both private companies and property owners. | 66% Hoffmann | 63% for the petitioner · 1,072 votes | 59% Economic Activity · 249 votes | 75% lower court conservative · 543 votes | not yet argued |
Neil M. Gorsuch Republican appointee · since OT2016 Justice Gorsuch is a textualist and originalist who often champions individual liberties and limits on federal power. He has shown a willingness to protect property rights and could be persuaded by arguments that state law provides a more robust framework for just compensation when federal law is silent. | 63% Hoffmann | 65% for the petitioner · 592 votes | 60% Economic Activity · 141 votes | 59% lower court conservative · 286 votes | not yet argued |
Brett M. Kavanaugh Republican appointee · since OT2018 Justice Kavanaugh often seeks to apply a clear and consistent interpretation of statutes, considering both the text and legislative history. He may look for a balance that respects federal authority while also ensuring fair treatment for property owners, potentially by examining the intent behind the Natural Gas Act. | 63% Hoffmann | 69% for the petitioner · 498 votes | 68% Economic Activity · 123 votes | 62% lower court conservative · 244 votes | not yet argued |
Amy Coney Barrett Republican appointee · since OT2020 Justice Barrett is a textualist who focuses on the plain meaning of statutory language. Her analysis would likely center on what the Natural Gas Act explicitly states or implies regarding compensation, and whether its silence necessarily defaults to the constitutional minimum or allows for state law application. | 63% Hoffmann | 66% for the petitioner · 360 votes | 65% Economic Activity · 85 votes | 60% lower court conservative · 178 votes | not yet argued |
Ketanji Brown Jackson Democratic appointee · since OT2022 Justice Jackson often considers the historical context and practical effects of legal interpretations, particularly on individuals. Her approach might lead her to favor an interpretation that ensures robust compensation for landowners, potentially aligning with the application of state law to achieve a more just outcome. | 68% Hoffmann | 59% for the petitioner · 244 votes | 55% Economic Activity · 62 votes | 80% lower court conservative · 127 votes | not yet argued |
Rates are each justice's own participation record in the Supreme Court Database, the same history the model trains on; a rate on fewer than five votes is not shown. The predicted vote is VotePredictor SCOTUS' per-justice probability from the served model, which also reads the bench-wide transcript signal and how long each side held the podium.
Every call this term, justice by justice · how the model is built and its record. Data as of 2026-10-02.