No. 22-805
BG Gulf Coast LNG, L.L.C., et al. v. Sabine-Neches Navigation District of Jefferson County, Texas
Amici (1)
Experienced Counsel
Tags: commerce-clause congressional-consent constitutional-interpretation harbor-navigation maritime-law port-fees takings tonnage-clause user-fees
Key Terms:
Privacy
Privacy
Latest Conference:
2023-05-25
Question Presented (from Petition)
The question presented is whether the Act permits localities to charge fees for incomplete and unusable increments of a harbor navigation project.
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Whether the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 permits localities to charge fees for incomplete and unusable increments of a harbor navigation project
Docket Entries
2023-05-30
Petition DENIED. Justice Alito took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.
2023-05-09
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 5/25/2023.
2023-05-09
Reply of petitioners BG Gulf Coast LNG, L.L.C., et al. filed. (Distributed)
2023-04-25
Brief of respondent Sabine-Neches Navigation District of Jefferson County, Texas in opposition filed.
2023-03-27
Brief amicus curiae of American Petroleum Institute filed.
2023-03-13
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including April 26, 2023.
2023-03-10
Motion to extend the time to file a response from March 27, 2023 to April 26, 2023, submitted to The Clerk.
2023-02-22
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due March 27, 2023)
2023-01-19
Application (22A635) granted by Justice Sotomayor extending the time to file until February 22, 2023.
2023-01-11
Application (22A635) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from January 23, 2023 to February 22, 2023, submitted to Justice Sotomayor. (Justice Alito is recused.)
Attorneys
American Petroleum Institute
Steven Paul Lehotsky — Lehotsky Keller LLP, Amicus
BG Gulf Coast LNG, L.L.C., et al.
Neal Kumar Katyal — Hogan Lovells US LLP, Petitioner
Sabine-Neches Navigation District of Jefferson County, Texas
Jeremy Charles Marwell — Vinson & Elkins LLP, Respondent