ShareThis Page

Large, lively crowd turns out for Supreme Court arguments on gas drilling laws

| Wednesday, Oct. 17, 2012, 3:50 p.m.
Stephanie Strasburg | Tribune-Review
Michele Bertini (left) 63, of Middlesex and Diane Sipe, 65, of Jackson Township carry signs protesting PA Act 13 as they leave the state Supreme Court at the City County Building in downtown Pittsburgh on Wednesday, October 17, 2012. Oral arguments were heard in the Act 13 case, with protesters claiming the Marcellus Shale gas drilling law strips away the constitutional rights of citizens and municipalities in regards to making zoning decisions about where gas wells can be drilled. Sipe, who says she and her husband have lived and fixed up a farm house in Butler County for 22 years, is concerned how her neighbor's decision to lease their land to natural gas drillers will affect her own property value, health, and air and water quality. 'We have 22 acres, and we will not lease,' said Sipe, who said she has been approached to lease her land for drilling several times.
Stephanie Strasburg | Tribune-Review
Signs protesting PA Act 13 lean outside a courtroom door at the state Supreme Court in the City County Building in downtown Pittsburgh on Wednesday, October 17, 2012. Oral arguments were heard in the Act 13 case, with protesters claiming the Marcellus Shale gas drilling law strips away the constitutional rights of citizens and municipalities in regards to making zoning decisions about where gas wells can be drilled.

A standing-room-only crowd of cheering activists inspired a raucous atmosphere Wednesday at a crucial Pennsylvania Supreme Court legal argument on the state's new oil and gas laws.

Two Democratic justices challenged a lawyer arguing to save the state's limits on local control of gas drilling. After some of the 130 people applauded in the normally staid courtroom at the City-County Building, Downtown, Chief Justice Ronald D. Castille demanded order and threatened to throw out those who didn't pipe down.

“I've never heard (that) before in all my career,” said Walter A. Bunt Jr., a gas industry lawyer.

Justices gave no indication of when they would rule on the constitutionality of the 8-month-old law.

South Fayette, and Cecil, Peters, Mt. Pleasant and Robinson in Washington County are leading a group trying to strike down portions of Act 13. Commonwealth Court ruled 4-3 in July that the state overstepped its authority by allowing drilling in all land-use zones, even residential neighborhoods.

As Philadelphia attorney Matthew Haverstick tried to defend the state's rule, Justice Max Baer of Mt. Lebanon told him his argument was “scary” to laymen, families and homeowners. Justice Seamus P. McCaffery of Philadelphia asked the attorney about “a private citizen's right to have a quiet residential community.”

State officials argue lawmakers have a right to limit municipal powers and did so to establish uniform rules for the drilling industry and gas-land owners.

Several municipalities and activists argue the law unfairly bars them from keeping drilling away from schools, parks and businesses.

Act 13, passed by a Republican-led General Assembly and signed by GOP Gov. Tom Corbett, also imposed impact fees on drillers.

Those fees, which state officials this week said raised $204 million, are not at issue in the court case.

The courtroom included anti-drilling activists, some in fleece jackets and T-shirts, mixing among lawyers and government officials in dark suits. Court officers forbid activists from hauling protest signs into the courtroom. Many activists said they were hopeful because of Baer and McCaffery's questions and comments.

Haverstick and the lead attorney for the suburbs, John M. Smith, said the justices often ask questions that end up far from where their final rulings land.

Some legal analysts agreed. Judges might think the law is bad policy and push lawyers about that, before ultimately stepping back and ruling based only on the constitutional powers of the General Assembly, said Ross Pifer, director of the Agricultural Law Resource and Reference Center at Penn State's Dickinson School of Law.

“But, that said, the (state) still cannot be thrilled at the way this hearing went,” said John Burkoff, a University of Pittsburgh law professor who did not attend the hearing.

Baer and McCaffery's comments could be a sign of more pragmatic problems for the state, Burkoff said. The Supreme Court has only six active justices — three Democrats and three Republicans — which means a case could end in a 3-3 tie. That means the Commonwealth Court ruling would stand,

Other court experts were struck by how pointed the two justices' statements sometimes were, going beyond typical questions.

“My reading of the (rule) is that Pennsylvania's residential communities can now be turned into industrial communities where tractor-trailer traffic is running all along the streets,” McCaffery said at one point.

The justices are not inclined to make statements so far off from their eventual ruling that it would disappoint voters, said Duquesne University law professor Bruce Ledewitz.

“I don't think they were just posing questions. I think they were posing deep-seated concerns,” he said. “It's not just academic for them. They have to face the voters in the future.”

Timothy Puko is a staff writer for Trib Total Media. He can be reached at 412-320-7991 or

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.