Judge blasts Army Corps for pipeline protests, orders $28M in damages to North Dakota
A federal judge has ordered the United States government to pay North Dakota nearly $28 million dollars, finding that the executive branch 'abandoned the rule of law' in its response to the Dakota Access Pipeline protests of 2016 and 2017.
In the lawsuit, filed in 2019, North Dakota requested $38 million in damages from the United States government — the total sum it claims it paid for policing and cleaning up the demonstrations.
In a long-awaited decision filed Wednesday, U.S. District Court Judge Daniel Traynor sided with the state, finding the Corps at fault for negligence, public nuisance and civil trespass claims.
More Dakota Access Pipeline coverage
'While North Dakota was drowning in the chaos of the protests, the United States dropped an anvil into the pool and turned up the turmoil,' he wrote in a nearly 120-page order.
Thousands came to south-central North Dakota to protest the construction of the crude oil pipeline in solidarity with the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, which views the project as a looming environmental hazard and an encroachment upon Native territory. It has also accused the pipeline of disrupting sacred cultural sites.
Demonstrators set up camp near where the pipeline crosses beneath Lake Oahe — a reservoir on the Missouri River managed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers less than a half-mile upstream from the Standing Rock Sioux Reservation. Opponents urged the Army Corps of Engineers — and later, the federal courts — to deny the pipeline's developer, Energy Transfer, the land easement necessary to cross Lake Oahe.
The largest demonstration camp was located on land managed by the Corps.
The protests lasted from spring of 2016 to February of 2017, when former Gov. Doug Burgum ordered protesters to evacuate the land.
4 highlights from the 4-week DAPL protest trial
Traynor wrote the Army Corps was legally required to enforce its property rights as soon as it became aware of the protests — either by requiring the demonstrators to obtain a permit to use its land or forcing the protesters to leave.
Early on in the demonstrations, the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe was in talks with the Army Corps about obtaining a special use permit, but those negotiations fell through, witnesses testified during the trial last year.
In September 2016, the Corps published a press release stating the permit had been granted, despite that the tribe never completed the application process.
Had the Corps followed through with the permit, the agency could have prevented millions in damages to the state, Traynor continued. Such a permit could have required demonstrators to handle cleanup, incentivized protest leaders to prevent damage to the land and prohibited protesters from establishing permanent structures at the campsites, he reasoned. He said the agency could have closed its land if protesters refused to comply with these requirements.
The Wednesday ruling expands on a prior order published in December 2023, in which Traynor held that the Army Corps had violated its own permitting procedures by not requiring protesters to obtain the permit.
Traynor found that the Corps' decision to allow protesters to use its land — coupled with the press release, which he characterized as an endorsement of the demonstrations — prolonged and intensified the movement.
The United States argued other factors were responsible for the protest's rise in popularity, like the Corps' pending decision on the pipeline easement, the tribe's historic claims to the land and national media attention. Winona LaDuke, an Indigenous environmental activist, testified during the trial that the Corps' actions surrounding the permit and press release did not affect her decision to be at the camp, for example.
Traynor in his Wednesday order called these elements 'red herrings' and 'immaterial' to the Corps' fault in the protests.
'Certainly, protesters had their own independent incentives for why they protested,' Traynor wrote, 'but as discussed above, the facts as adduced at trial show protesters were supported, enabled, and encouraged by the Corps' granting of the de facto special use permit that gave protesters a refuge from which they could conduct repeated illegal and illicit activities.'
Lack of federal support overwhelmed law enforcement during DAPL, officials testify
The United States has argued that the Corps responded the best it could in an extraordinary situation, and that it did not know the protests would unfold the way they did.
Traynor in his decision rejected this claim, finding that evidence presented at trial showed that the U.S. government knew early on that the demonstrations could balloon in size and become unruly.
North Dakota on multiple occasions asked for federal law enforcement to assist with managing the demonstrations, which Traynor said indicates the United States was aware that the protests posed a safety threat.
The United States also said that it cannot be held liable for the damages because the protests were protected speech.
Traynor said that while some protesters engaged in protected speech, the damages at issue in the lawsuit are not covered by the First Amendment since they resulted from violent behavior. He also noted the United States cannot use the First Amendment protections as a defense when no protesters are party to the case.
'The damages here were caused by tumultuous, unsanitary, and otherwise horrific conditions that caused significant violence to the land and responding law enforcement officers,' he wrote.
Participants in the protest, including those who testified during the trial, emphasized that not all were violent. Demonstrators also objected to the response of law enforcement in riot gear and tactics of private security personnel.
Traynor reduced the award to North Dakota by $10 million, since the U.S. government had already awarded the state a grant of that size to offset the cost of its emergency response to the protests.
The state also received a $15 million donation from pipeline company Energy Transfer Partners in connection to the protests.
Tribal activist faults North Dakota for high DAPL protest costs
Traynor's decision comes more than a year after the case went to trial.
During the four-week trial, which kicked off in February 2024, the court heard from a wide-ranging cast of witnesses — including Burgum and former Gov. Jack Dalrymple, Native activists, federal officials and law enforcement.
It was not immediately clear whether the United States government would appeal Traynor's decision. The Corps did not immediately respond to a request for comment Wednesday.
North Dakota Gov. Kelly Armstrong and Attorney General Drew Wrigley called the decision 'a major win for North Dakota taxpayers and the rule of law.'
'As outlined in trial testimony and Judge Traynor's ruling, decisions made by the Obama administration emboldened protesters and ultimately caused millions of dollars in damage to North Dakota, while endangering the health and safety of North Dakota communities, families and law enforcement officers who responded to the protests,' Armstrong and Wrigley said in a joint statement.
Lake Oahe is the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe's primary source of water. The pipeline's path also includes unceded land recognized as belonging to the Sioux Nation under an 1851 treaty with the U.S. government.
The Dakota Access Pipeline has been in operation since 2017. In a lawsuit brought against the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers by Standing Rock in 2016, a federal judge found that the Army Corps had violated the law by granting DAPL an easement without first conducting a full environmental review of the pipeline, which is required under the National Environmental Policy Act.
The judge vacated the easement and ordered the pipeline to be drained of oil until the Army Corps could complete an environmental impact study. A higher court in 2021 upheld the decision to pull the easement but ruled that DAPL could remain in operation, concluding that Standing Rock had not shown it is likely to suffer irreparable harm if the pipeline is not shuttered.
The environmental impact study is still in progress.
A separate legal challenge brought by Energy Transfer against environmental group Greenpeace related to the DAPL protests went to trial in February. A nine-person jury of Morton County residents found Greenpeace liable for more than $660 million in damages.
SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Fox Sports
13 hours ago
- Fox Sports
Trump's demand for Washington NFL team name change ignores years of psychological data, experts say
Associated Press This week, President Donald Trump threatened to hold up a new stadium deal if Washington's NFL team did not restore its name to a racial slur, despite decades of psychological research showing the negative mental health impacts of Native American mascots. The president is demanding a private company change its name to something that researchers have linked to a variety of negative mental health outcomes, particularly for children, said Mark Macarro, president of the National Congress of American Indians. The organization has been pushing back on stereotypes of Native Americans since the 1950s, including Native sports mascots. 'This is a big reminder with this administration that we're going to take some backward steps,' Macarro said. 'We have our studies, we have our receipts, and we can demonstrate that this causes real harm.' More than two decades of research on Native mascots have shown they lead to heightened rates of depression, self-harm, substance abuse and suicidal ideation among Indigenous peoples, and those impacts are the greatest on children. Citing this data, the American Psychological Association has been recommending the retirement of Native mascots since 2001. The president believes that franchises who changed their names to 'pander to the Woke Left' should immediately restore their original names,' White House spokesperson Davis Ingle said in a statement to The Associated Press. 'Thanks to President Trump, the days of political correctness and cancel culture are over,' he said. Some teams change names while others resist Under pressure from decades of activism, the Washington Redskins — a racial slur and arguably the most egregious example — retired the name in 2020, eventually settling on the Commanders. Later that year, the Cleveland Indians changed its name to the Guardians. Two major league teams, the NFL's Kansas City Chiefs and the NHL's Chicago Blackhawks, continue to resist calls to change their names. The Chiefs have banned fans from wearing headdresses or face paint meant to depict Native Americans at games but has resisted prohibiting the use of the 'tomahawk chop', which critics have long called derogatory. More than 1,500 grade schools across the country — a decrease over the past few years — still use Native mascots, according to the National Congress of American Indians, using names like 'Savages' as well as the slur that Trump aims to bring back to the Washington team. Experts say Native mascots reinforce racial bias Native American people, activists, and leaders have been asking for the retirement of Native mascots for generations. Popular arguments defending the mascots have been that they 'honor' Native people or that it simply boiled down to people being 'offended," said Steph Cross, a professor of psychology and researcher at the University of Oklahoma and a citizen of the Comanche Nation. But now we have decades of data that agrees on the negative mental health impacts, she said. 'Being offended is not even really the problem. That's a symptom,' Cross said. She noted that Native mascots aren't just harmful to Indigenous peoples, they also reinforce racial prejudices among non-Natives, including people who will work directly with Native people like health care professionals and teachers. 'I think about these people who are going to be working with Native children, whether they realize that or not, and how they may unintentionally have these biases," Cross said. Stephanie Fryberg, a professor at Northwestern University, who is a member of the Tulalip Tribes and one of the country's leading researchers on Native mascots, said, 'The ultimate impact, whether conscious or unconscious, is bias in American society." Her work has also shown Native mascots increase the risk of real psychological harm, especially for young Native people. 'Honoring Native peoples means ending dehumanization in both imagery and policy," she said. "Indian Country needs meaningful investment, respect, and the restoration of federal commitments, not more distractions or excuses for inaction.' Several states pass Native mascot bans In recent years, several states — including Maine, Oregon, Washington, Colorado, and New York — have passed laws or issued directives that ban or require districts to change Native mascots. A law prohibiting them in Illinois stalled this year in the state Senate. The Trump administration has interjected into other efforts to change Native mascots. This month, the U.S. Department of Education launched an investigation into a Long Island public school district working to retire its Native American-themed mascot. 'The Department of Education has been clear with the state of New York: it is neither legal nor right to prohibit Native American mascots and logos while celebrating European and other cultural imagery in schools," said U.S. Secretary of Education Linda McMahon. When it comes to grade schools specifically, the negative impacts on children's mental health is compounded by the fact that U.S. history standards largely ignore Indigenous history and rarely frame Native Americans as modern people, said Sarah Shear, a professor and researcher at the University of Washington. In 2015, she was part of a study that found 87% of schools in the U.S. teach about Native Americans in only a pre-1900 context. That hasn't improved much in the decade since the study, Shear said. Most curriculum also doesn't present the arguments against harmful stereotypes, like Native Mascots. 'Just on the standards documents alone," Shear said, 'I'm not surprised that Trump and other folks continue to advocate that these mascots are celebratory when they're not.'
Hamilton Spectator
13 hours ago
- Hamilton Spectator
Trump's demand for Washington NFL team name change ignores years of psychological data, experts say
This week, President Donald Trump threatened to hold up a new stadium deal if Washington's NFL team did not restore its name to a racial slur, despite decades of psychological research showing the negative mental health impacts of Native American mascots. The president is demanding a private company change its name to something that researchers have linked to a variety of negative mental health outcomes, particularly for children, said Mark Macarro, president of the National Congress of American Indians. The organization has been pushing back on stereotypes of Native Americans since the 1950s, including Native sports mascots. 'This is a big reminder with this administration that we're going to take some backward steps,' Macarro said. 'We have our studies, we have our receipts, and we can demonstrate that this causes real harm.' More than two decades of research on Native mascots have shown they lead to heightened rates of depression, self-harm, substance abuse and suicidal ideation among Indigenous peoples, and those impacts are the greatest on children. Citing this data, the American Psychological Association has been recommending the retirement of Native mascots since 2001. The president believes that franchises who changed their names to 'pander to the Woke Left' should immediately restore their original names,' White House spokesperson Davis Ingle said in a statement to The Associated Press. 'Thanks to President Trump, the days of political correctness and cancel culture are over,' he said. Some teams change names while others resist Under pressure from decades of activism, the Washington Redskins — a racial slur and arguably the most egregious example — retired the name in 2020 , eventually settling on the Commanders. Later that year, the Cleveland Indians changed its name to the Guardians . Two major league teams, the NFL's Kansas City Chiefs and the NHL's Chicago Blackhawks, continue to resist calls to change their names . The Chiefs have banned fans from wearing headdresses or face paint meant to depict Native Americans at games but has resisted prohibiting the use of the 'tomahawk chop' , which critics have long called derogatory. More than 1,500 grade schools across the country — a decrease over the past few years — still use Native mascots, according to the National Congress of American Indians, using names like 'Savages' as well as the slur that Trump aims to bring back to the Washington team. Experts say Native mascots reinforce racial bias Native American people, activists, and leaders have been asking for the retirement of Native mascots for generations . Popular arguments defending the mascots have been that they 'honor' Native people or that it simply boiled down to people being 'offended,' said Steph Cross, a professor of psychology and researcher at the University of Oklahoma and a citizen of the Comanche Nation. But now we have decades of data that agrees on the negative mental health impacts, she said. 'Being offended is not even really the problem. That's a symptom,' Cross said. She noted that Native mascots aren't just harmful to Indigenous peoples, they also reinforce racial prejudices among non-Natives, including people who will work directly with Native people like health care professionals and teachers. 'I think about these people who are going to be working with Native children, whether they realize that or not, and how they may unintentionally have these biases,' Cross said. Stephanie Fryberg, a professor at Northwestern University, who is a member of the Tulalip Tribes and one of the country's leading researchers on Native mascots, said, 'The ultimate impact, whether conscious or unconscious, is bias in American society.' Her work has also shown Native mascots increase the risk of real psychological harm, especially for young Native people. 'Honoring Native peoples means ending dehumanization in both imagery and policy,' she said. 'Indian Country needs meaningful investment, respect, and the restoration of federal commitments, not more distractions or excuses for inaction.' Several states pass Native mascot bans In recent years, several states — including Maine, Oregon, Washington, Colorado, and New York — have passed laws or issued directives that ban or require districts to change Native mascots. A law prohibiting them in Illinois stalled this year in the state Senate. The Trump administration has interjected into other efforts to change Native mascots. This month, the U.S. Department of Education launched an investigation into a Long Island public school district working to retire its Native American-themed mascot. 'The Department of Education has been clear with the state of New York: it is neither legal nor right to prohibit Native American mascots and logos while celebrating European and other cultural imagery in schools,' said U.S. Secretary of Education Linda McMahon. When it comes to grade schools specifically, the negative impacts on children's mental health is compounded by the fact that U.S. history standards largely ignore Indigenous history and rarely frame Native Americans as modern people, said Sarah Shear, a professor and researcher at the University of Washington. In 2015, she was part of a study that found 87% of schools in the U.S. teach about Native Americans in only a pre-1900 context. That hasn't improved much in the decade since the study, Shear said. Most curriculum also doesn't present the arguments against harmful stereotypes, like Native Mascots. 'Just on the standards documents alone,' Shear said, 'I'm not surprised that Trump and other folks continue to advocate that these mascots are celebratory when they're not.' Error! Sorry, there was an error processing your request. There was a problem with the recaptcha. Please try again. You may unsubscribe at any time. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of service apply. Want more of the latest from us? Sign up for more at our newsletter page .
Yahoo
3 days ago
- Yahoo
Supreme Court blocks North Dakota redistricting ruling that would gut key part of Voting Rights Act
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Thursday blocked a lower-court ruling in a redistricting dispute in North Dakota that would gut a landmark federal civil rights law for millions of people. The justices indicated in an unsigned order that they are likely to take up a federal appeals court ruling that would eliminate the most common path people and civil rights groups use to sue under a key provision of the 60-year-old Voting Rights Act. The case could be argued as early as 2026 and decided by next summer. Three conservative justices, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas, would have rejected the appeal. The court also has a separate redistricting case over a second majority Black congressional district in Louisiana. The justices heard arguments in March, but took the rare step of calling for a new round of arguments in their term that begins in October. They have yet to spell out what issues they want discussed. In the North Dakota case, the Spirit Lake Tribe and Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians, with reservations 60 miles apart, argued that the state's 2021 legislative map violated the act by diluting their voting strength and ability to elect their own candidates. The case went to trial in 2023, and a federal judge later ordered the use of a map of the area, including the reservations that led to the election last year of three Native Americans, all Democrats, to the Republican-supermajority Legislature. But in a 2-1 ruling issued in May, a three-judge panel of the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that only the Justice Department can bring such lawsuits under the law's Section 2. The 8th Circuit also had ruled in an Arkansas case in 2023 that private individuals can't sue under the same provision. More than 90 percent of Section 2 cases have been brought through private enforcement, UCLA law professor Richard Hasen wrote on the Election Law blog. The 8th Circuit rulings conflict with decades of decisions by appellate courts that have affirmed the rights of private individuals to sue under Section 2. The Supreme Court often will step in when appeals courts around the country come to different decisions on the same legal issue. In a statement, Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians Chairman Jamie Azure said, 'We are relieved that Native voters in North Dakota retain the ability to protect ourselves from discrimination at the polls. Our fight for the rights of our citizens continues. The map enacted by the North Dakota legislature unlawfully dilutes the votes of Native voters, and it cannot be allowed to stand.' North Dakota Secretary of State Michael Howe, a Republican, who is named in the lawsuit, said his office 'will continue to follow election laws set by the North Dakota legislature or as directed by any final decisions by the courts.' The 8th Circuit covers seven states: Arkansas, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota and South Dakota. In the wake of the Arkansas decision, Minnesota and other states moved to shore up voting rights with state-level protections. ___ Dura reported from Bismarck, North Dakota.
