- Climate Litigation Database
- /
- Search
- /
- United States
- /
- Minnesota
- /
- White Earth Nation v. Kerry
White Earth Nation v. Kerry
Geography
Year
2014
Document Type
Litigation
Part of
About this case
Filing year
2014
Status
Action dismissed.
Geography
Docket number
14-cv-04726
Court/admin entity
United States → United States Federal Courts → United States District Court for the District of Minnesota (D. Minn.)
Case category
Federal Statutory Claims (US) → NEPA (US)
Principal law
United States → National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
At issue
Challenge to approvals of cross-border pipelines.
Topics
, ,
Documents
Filing Date
Document
Type
Topics
Beta
Search results
12/09/2015
Action dismissed.
The federal district court for the District of Minnesota dismissed an action challenging the State Department’s approvals of the replacement of a segment of an oil pipeline that crossed the U.S.-Canada border and the expansion of the capacity of another cross-border pipeline. The plaintiffs—who alleged they would be affected by the impacts of increased greenhouse gas emissions from the refining and end-use of tar sands crude oil from Canada—contended that the State Department had failed to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act and the National Historic Preservation Act. The court said that the State Department’s actions were not subject to judicial review because they were presidential actions not reviewable under the Administrative Procedure Act.
Decision
–
11/11/2014
Complaint filed.
An Indian tribe and seven environmental, conservation, and community organizations brought a lawsuit under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) challenging the U.S. Department of State’s approval of a new pipeline for importing heavy tar sands crude oil from Alberta, Canada, to a terminal facility in Wisconsin. The lawsuit, filed in the federal district court for the District of Minnesota, also challenged the State Department’s authorization of the diversion of 800,000 barrels per day to a pipeline segment purportedly constructed as part of an existing pipeline. Plaintiffs argued that approval of this diversion undermined the NEPA review of a request to increase the volume of oil imported on a pipeline known as the “Alberta Clipper.” Plaintiffs alleged that they brought the lawsuit on their own behalf as well as on behalf of their members who use areas that will be affected by air and water pollution from the pipeline projects and by the impacts of increased greenhouse gas emissions from the refining and end-use of tar sands crude oil.
Complaint
–
Summary
Challenge to approvals of cross-border pipelines.
Topics mentioned most in this case Beta
See how often topics get mentioned in this case and view specific passages of text highlighted in each document. Accuracy is not 100%. Learn more
Group
Topics
Policy instrument
Risk
Impacted group
Just transition
Renewable energy
Fossil fuel
Greenhouse gas
Economic sector
Adaptation/resilience
Finance