Attorneys for Act 13 Challengers Lay Out Argument for Supreme Court

Attorneys for the group of municipalities, medical doctor and nonprofit challenging the state’s new law governing Marcellus Shale play filed a brief with the state Supreme Court laying out its argument for why it should affirm a Commonwealth Court’s ruling that portions of Act 13 are unconstitutional.

“Act 13’s promulgation of a uniform set of zoning regulations governing oil and gas operations throughout the commonwealth constitutes a single set of statewide zoning whiles which allow for incompatible uses in like zoning districts thereby eliminating the constitutional rationale for such districts,” the court paperwork reads.

It continues: “Act 13’s broad brush approach and failure to account for the health, safety and welfare of citizens, and the preservation of the character of residential neighborhoods and beneficial and compatible land uses results in an improper use of the commonwealth’s police power and is therefore unconstitutional.”

The state Supreme Court will hear arguments on the Act 13 appeal on Oct. 17 in Pittsburgh.

The state appealed the Commonwealth’s ruling that portions of Act 13 are unconstitutional. For more information on the appeal, click here.

For information on the challenge, click here.

For more information on amicus briefs filed in support of the challengers, click here.

For more information on a motion to intervene on behalf of two top state Republican leaders, click here.

Share your thoughts in the comments below.