Skip to content
The Climate Litigation Database
Litigation

White Hat v. Landry

Date
2019
Geography
Louisiana
Part of
White Hat v. Murrill

About this case

Filing year
2019
Status
Motions to dismiss granted in part and denied in part and case transferred.
Geography
Docket number
3:19-cv-00322
Court/admin entity
United States → United States Federal Courts → M.D. La.
Case category
Climate Change Protesters and Scientists → Protesters
Principal law
United States → First AmendmentUnited States → Fourteenth Amendment—Due ProcessUnited States → Louisiana Critical Infrastructure Law
At issue
Lawsuit challenging 2018 amendments to a Louisiana law that prohibits unauthorized entry of critical infrastructure by expanding the definition of critical infrastructure to include 125,000 miles of pipelines.

Documents

Filing Date
Type
Action Taken
Document
Summary
07/30/2020
Decision
Motions to dismiss granted in part and denied in part and case transferred.
View
In a case challenging the facial and as-applied constitutionality of Louisiana’s law prohibiting entry of critical infrastructure including pipelines, the federal district court for the Middle District of Louisiana denied motions to dismiss claims against a district attorney and sheriff in St. Martin Parish, where some of the plaintiffs were arrested while protesting construction of the Bayou Bridge Pipeline. The court dismissed claims against the Louisiana attorney general, finding that he was not a proper defendant under Ex Parte Young. Although the court concluded that venue over a constitutional challenge to a state statute was appropriate in the state’s capitol, the court granted a motion to transfer the case to the Western District of Louisiana, finding that transfer was more convenient for the parties and witnesses and in the interest of justice.
05/22/2019
Complaint
Complaint filed.
View
Pipeline opponents, a journalist, landowners, community leaders, and environmental justice organizations filed a federal lawsuit challenging 2018 amendments to a Louisiana law that prohibits unauthorized entry of critical infrastructure. The complaint alleged that the amendments expanded the definition of critical infrastructure to include 125,000 miles of pipelines, which in many cases are not visible or clearly marked. The plaintiffs asserted that the law was unconstitutional on its face and as applied because it is unconstitutionally vague and allows for arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement, is overbroad, has a chilling effect on protected speech, and targets speech with a particular viewpoint for harsher punishment. They alleged that “the law’s vagueness, overbreadth, and unconstitutional aim are glaringly apparent in the felony arrests of pipeline opponents engaged in non-violent protest immediately after the law went into effect.”

Summary

Lawsuit challenging 2018 amendments to a Louisiana law that prohibits unauthorized entry of critical infrastructure by expanding the definition of critical infrastructure to include 125,000 miles of pipelines.