Court Fight Over Maryland Landowner Survey Access

Landowners in three Maryland counties face power-line surveys that a court has allowed without their consent.

Updated on Nov. 6, 2026 in Utilities

Bold flat-color editorial illustration of a steel transmission tower standing over a green farm field beside a wooden survey stake and fence line. — Pacific Legal Foundation asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review a federal ruling letting PSEG survey private land in three Maryland counties for a 67-mile power line without landowner consent. AI Illustration. Upload story photo >

Live Poll

Should utilities be allowed to survey private land without landowner permission?

The Pacific Legal Foundation has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review a ruling in the Maryland Piedmont Reliability Project case, in which PSEG plans to build 67 miles of power lines across properties of more than 100 landowners in Baltimore, Carroll and Frederick counties. The dispute affects utility-construction and right-of-way planning in Maryland.

Why it matters

PSEG obtained a preliminary injunction for limited access to private land for environmental surveys after landowners did not voluntarily agree, and attorneys argue this was a judicial shortcut around eminent domain approval from the Maryland Public Service Commission. The outcome will shape how transmission developers in Maryland gain survey access and how quickly they can move from planning to construction.

The planned Maryland Piedmont Reliability Project would run 67 miles of new power lines across the properties of more than 100 landowners in Baltimore, Carroll and Frederick counties. The source does not give a cost figure or a comparison with prior projects, and PSEG has not yet received a certificate for the project.

The players

PSEG

PSEG is a large regulated utility holding company whose planned transmission build-out in Maryland is designed to meet higher power demand from data centers in northern Virginia.

Pacific Legal Foundation

The Pacific Legal Foundation is a public-interest legal group that represents, on a pro bono basis, parties challenging government overreach.

Maryland Public Service Commission

The Maryland Public Service Commission is the state regulator that would grant eminent-domain approval for utility transmission projects in Maryland.

The details

PSEG sought access to private properties for environmental surveys but did not obtain voluntary compliance from landowners, so it asked the courts for access instead. A federal court granted a preliminary injunction allowing limited access in June 2025, and the Fourth Circuit upheld that order. The Pacific Legal Foundation, which takes cases challenging government overreach on a pro bono basis, argues the approach bypasses the state's eminent-domain process, and the petition arrives after the Supreme Court's 2025 Trump v. CASA ruling narrowed lower courts' use of broad preliminary injunctions.

2024: Landowners learned of PSEG's power line plans.
June 2025: A federal court granted the preliminary injunction for limited access.
Early 2026: A Supreme Court update is expected on whether it takes the case.
Before the end of 2027: Oral arguments could be heard, if the case is accepted.

Market Landscape

The case tests whether utilities can use court-ordered survey access as an alternative to state eminent-domain proceedings. It sits against the 2025 Trump v. CASA ruling, which narrowed the broad preliminary injunctions that lower courts had been issuing.

Property owners along proposed transmission routes should expect survey requests to be contested in court when voluntary access is refused. Operators in construction, land services and environmental surveying should watch whether the injunction approach holds, since it affects project timing and access planning.

The takeaway

Track the Supreme Court's early 2026 decision on whether to take the case, since a ruling on survey-access injunctions would change how transmission developers approach landowner negotiations. Operators in utility-adjacent services should treat access disputes as a schedule risk and review how project timelines depend on court outcomes, with questions on specific legal exposure referred to qualified counsel.