Rocky Prestangen and Randy Stevenson (Photo: Institute for Justice, AI-enhanced image)
A settlement followed, but the legal proceedings had already cost them approximately $300,000. the US Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit overturned that decision in March 2025 Although the trial court directed WBI to reimburse those expenses.
WBI Energy Transmission, concerns Leonard Hoffmann, members of his family and neighbouring ranchers in McKenzie County, according to the official court record. The case, Hoffmann v. Their disagreement with WBI Energy Transmission began over the amount the company was prepared to pay for easements. These agreements allow a company to use a portion of private land for purposes such as laying and maintaining pipelines without purchasing the entire property. The landowners initially succeeded in getting a court to consider evidence of payments made for similar pipeline easements.
A dispute over who should pay nearly $300,000 in legal expenses has brought a group of North Dakota ranchers and a natural gas pipeline company before the US Supreme Court. The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear the case on November 9. The ranchers had challenged the compensation offered for pipeline access across their properties and eventually reached a settlement. However, an appeals court later ruled that the company was not responsible for their legal costs.
Which represents the ranchers, the case could affect property owners in other states where local laws provide protections beyond the minimum compensation required under the US Constitution, according to the Institute for Justice. The Supreme Court will now examine whether private companies exercising federally authorised eminent domain powers must follow state compensation laws. The trial court applied those provisions and ordered WBI to cover the landowners’ legal costs. However, the appeals court changed the decision, saying the company’s authority to acquire the easements came from federal law. The ranchers believed that this approach did not adequately reflect the value of allowing a pipeline to cross their properties. They wanted the court to consider what other companies had paid landowners for comparable easements.