North Dakota ranchers’ $383,375 legal fee dispute reaches US Supreme Court. (AI image)
The federal district court in North Dakota ruled that state law governed the issue and ordered WBI to reimburse the ranchers $383,375.76.
The public-interest law firm representing the ranchers, WBI initially offered them about half the property’s market value, according to the Institute for Justice. The landowners challenged the proposed amount and took the dispute to court. The parties eventually reached a settlement over the value of the property. However, they left unresolved whether the company was also required to pay the landowners’ legal fees and other expenses incurred during the proceedings. The appeals court reversed the decision, holding that a private company exercising eminent domain powers under the Natural Gas Act stands in the position of the federal government. It ruled that federal law, not North Dakota law, determines the compensation payable in such cases. The ranchers subsequently approached the Supreme Court, which agreed to examine the dispute. The US government has supported the company’s position in the Supreme Court proceedings. In its brief, the government argued that when Congress delegates federal eminent domain powers to a private entity without expressly adopting state compensation rules, the Fifth Amendment standard applies. Under that interpretation, attorney’s fees are not recoverable.
WBI challenged the order before the Eighth Circuit. The US Supreme Court will hear a dispute on Monday over whether a private natural gas pipeline company must pay the legal expenses of landowners whose property it acquires through eminent domain.
The case involves North Dakota rancher Leonard Hoffmann and his neighbours, who won an award of $383,375.76 in attorney’s fees and litigation expenses against WBI Energy Transmission, according to SCOTUS Analytics. However, the US Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit overturned the award in March 2025, ruling that federal law, rather than state law, governs compensation in such cases.
The ranchers have now challenged that decision before the Supreme Court.