## Facts

- West Virginia produced substantial natural gas that, for years, was transported by interstate pipelines into Pennsylvania and Ohio for residential, institutional, and industrial use.
- In 1919, West Virginia enacted a statute requiring pipeline companies transporting West Virginia gas to give preference to West Virginia consumers.
- Pennsylvania and Ohio alleged the statute would materially curtail or cut off their gas supplies, threatening public institutions, residents’ welfare, and significant economic activity.
- Pennsylvania and Ohio filed original actions in the U.S. Supreme Court seeking to enjoin West Virginia officials from enforcing the statute.
- West Virginia contested the Court’s jurisdiction, argued the suits were premature, asserted nonjoinder of indispensable parties (pipeline companies and in-state consumers), and defended the statute under state police power.

## Issues

1. Whether the dispute presented a justiciable controversy between states within Article III supporting the Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction.
2. Whether the actions were premature because the statute had not yet been fully applied or enforced against the pipeline companies.
3. Whether pipeline companies and West Virginia consumers who would benefit from enforcement were indispensable parties.
4. Whether the Commerce Clause permits a gas-producing state to require preferential access for in-state consumers when that preference necessarily withdraws gas from an established interstate stream.

## Decision

- The Court exercised original jurisdiction, holding the threatened withdrawal of gas from an established interstate flow and the likely serious injury to the plaintiff states created a justiciable interstate controversy.
- The Court held the suits were not premature because the statute’s enforcement mechanisms and foreseeable practical effects posed an immediate and direct threat of curtailment of interstate shipments.
- The Court held pipeline companies and favored in-state consumers were not essential parties because the cases concerned enjoining state enforcement of a state statute.
- The Court held the West Virginia preference requirement violated the Commerce Clause by discriminating against and burdening established interstate commerce in natural gas.
- The Court enjoined enforcement of the statute to the extent it interfered with the established interstate flow of natural gas to Pennsylvania and Ohio.

## Legal Principles

- A justiciable controversy between states exists when one state seeks to enjoin another state’s impending enforcement of a statute that threatens substantial injury to the plaintiff state’s sovereign and quasi-sovereign interests, grounded in a federal constitutional claim.
- Suits are not premature where a statute’s procedural, penal, and remedial provisions make its restrictive effects on interstate commerce direct, imminent, and practically inevitable.
- In state-versus-state suits challenging a statute’s validity and enforcement, private entities affected by the statute (such as carriers or local consumers) are not necessarily indispensable parties when effective relief runs against state officials.
- Natural gas is an article of commerce; a producing state may not require preferential purchase rights for in-state consumers when that preference necessarily withdraws substantial volumes from an established interstate current of commerce.

## Conclusion

The Court permitted Pennsylvania and Ohio to sue West Virginia in the Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction and enjoined West Virginia from enforcing an in-state preference scheme that would divert natural gas from established interstate commerce, holding the scheme unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause.


Pennsylvania v. West Virginia, 262 U.S. 553 (1923)