logo
Judge blasts Army Corps for pipeline protests, orders $28M in damages to North Dakota

Judge blasts Army Corps for pipeline protests, orders $28M in damages to North Dakota

Yahoo24-04-2025
Opponents of the Dakota Access Pipeline camp north of the Standing Rock Sioux Reservation on Dec. 3, 2016, outside Cannon Ball, N.D. (Photo by)
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
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

‘Devastating': US public broadcasters condemn Trump cuts to key programs
‘Devastating': US public broadcasters condemn Trump cuts to key programs

Yahoo

time2 days ago

  • Yahoo

‘Devastating': US public broadcasters condemn Trump cuts to key programs

Public broadcast station leaders are condemning Donald Trump's latest victory after Congress approved a bill to cancel all federal funding for public broadcasting programs including PBS and NPR. The House signed off on the bill early on Friday morning, after Wednesday's key decision in the Senate to pass $9bn in spending cuts, slashing public broadcasting as well as foreign aid. The PBS president and CEO, Paula Kerger, said that the Senate's approval of the package 'goes against the will of the American people'. 'These cuts will significantly impact all of our stations, but will be especially devastating to smaller stations and those serving large rural areas. Many of our stations which provide access to free unique local programming and emergency alerts will now be forced to make hard decisions in the weeks and months ahead,' Kerger said. 'Despite today's setback, we are determined to keep fighting to preserve the essential services we provide to the American public.' Related: US House passes Trump plan to cut $9bn from foreign aid, public broadcasting Similarly, NPR's CEO, Katherine Maher, said: 'Nearly three in four Americans say they rely on their public radio stations for alerts and news for their public safety. Kate Riley, the president and CEO of the advocacy group America's Public Television Stations, said the organization was 'devastated that the Senate voted to eliminate federal funding to the local public television stations throughout this country that provide essential lifesaving public safety services, proven educational services and community connections to their communities every day for free'. The head of Native Public Media, Loris Taylor, called the Senate's decision 'deeply troubling'. Taylor, who heads a network of 57 Native radio stations and four T stations, had privately implored the South Dakota Republican senator Mike Rounds to reject the package, the New York Times reported on Wednesday. Following the Senate's passage of the bill, which Rounds ultimately endorsed, Taylor said: 'It poses an immediate threat to the survival of small, rural, and Tribal stations across the country. These hyperlocal stations, many of which are the only source of local news, emergency alerts, educational programming, and cultural preservation, operate with limited resources and rely on [the Corporation for Public Broadcasting] funding to stay on the air. 'Without this federal support, Native and rural communities stand to lose critical lifelines that connect them to the rest of the nation.' Echoing similar sentiments, Tom Abbott, the general manager of the KFSK community radio in Petersburg, Alaska, said: 'This destructive rescission of CPB funding – the substantial majority of which goes to local stations per statutory formula – will result in immediate and serious cuts to stations' local services and in some cases the total closure of stations, particularly in rural communities.' Abbott said: 'KFSK is about to lose 30% of our budget for this fiscal year, which began on July 1. We have a staff of five with an additional two part-time high school students and a Columbia University School of Journalism graduate student employed as our summer news intern. We will be forced to reduce our staff and therefore reduce our local service.' He added: 'Our broadcast day is nearly 60% locally produced content, ironically this revenue cut will likely result in more NPR-produced content in the event we can continue to raise enough donations locally to remain relevant and on the air.' LaFontaine Oliver, the president and executive chair of New York Public radio, shared similar concerns over the cuts' impacts on smaller stations. 'While CPB funding represents a relatively modest percentage of New York Public Radio's revenue, approximately 4%, the loss of CPB funding will still have a notable impact on our ability to serve audiences in our city and region with local news, community conversation, and cultural and classical music programming,' Oliver said. 'But we know that federal funding accounts for a much more significant amount of the budget for stations in smaller markets and rural areas, places that often lack commercial broadcast options, and those communities will feel the impact most swiftly and deeply,' he added. As part of NYPR's response to the threats from the Trump administration over public broadcasting, the station created a new role for LaFontaine – executive chair – this week. The station said this new role was created to allow LaFontaine 'to focus on the long-term sustainability of NYPR and the broader public radio system'. 'He'll be focusing on fundraising from foundations, members and other public sources, forging new collaborations and finding ways to support smaller stations,' NYPR added. Related: Why is the media paying millions to Trump? – podcast Other stations have also begun making internal changes. Earlier this week, the San Francisco-based TV and radio station KQED announced that it was making a 15% reduction to its workforce, citing 'a number of concurrent attempts to eliminate or impair federal funding for public media.' KQED's president, Michael Isip, said: 'We are deeply troubled that the Senate voted to eliminate congressionally approved federal funding for public media … If enacted, this bill poses serious financial challenges to NPR, PBS, and all local stations like KQED. 'Ultimately, the greatest impact will be on the communities we serve who rely on us for emergency communications, educational programming and services for our youngest learners, and trustworthy local news and information. This will be especially devastating in rural areas where their local public media station is their only local source for critical media services.' Solve the daily Crossword

The Trump Administration Is Trying to Silence Us. It's Only Making Us Stronger
The Trump Administration Is Trying to Silence Us. It's Only Making Us Stronger

Newsweek

time2 days ago

  • Newsweek

The Trump Administration Is Trying to Silence Us. It's Only Making Us Stronger

Hurricanes. Wildfires. Floods. As federal employees with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, we're often among the first on the ground when disaster strikes—and the last to leave. From the wildfires in Maui to the devastating floods in North Carolina, we're on the ground for as long as it takes, helping communities recover and rebuild. When we're not responding to crises, the workers at the Army Corps are performing other essential services to support the U.S. military, the public, and the economy. We design and build military bases and airfields for our troops; we clean up contaminated defense and superfund sites, and we maintain harbors and shipping channels to facilitate U.S. commerce. And while our work may not be as high-profile as other professions, it's vital for the prosperity of our communities and for reducing disaster risks. Given the importance of our work, it's concerning that President Donald Trump seems hell-bent on dismantling it. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers contractors clear the remains of Lifeline Fellowship Christian Center, which burned to the ground in the Eaton Fire, on May 22, 2025, in Altadena, Calif. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers contractors clear the remains of Lifeline Fellowship Christian Center, which burned to the ground in the Eaton Fire, on May 22, 2025, in Altadena, all started when President Trump took office and issued an executive order ripping away federal workers' collective bargaining rights. Through collective bargaining, workers can come together to negotiate improvements in their workplace, and perhaps most importantly, safe working conditions. For Army Corps workers, collective bargaining rights help to ensure that we have access to proper protective equipment on hazardous sites, and that rigorous safety systems are in place, even amid dangerous disaster relief missions. By negotiating these safety protocols into a binding contract, we have peace of mind knowing that proper safety precautions are being met, and that they can't be unreasonably taken away. If we weren't able to negotiate safe working conditions, our lives would be at risk, and our families would be forced to worry even more about whether we'd make it home safely. So it's hard to understand why the Trump administration is ignoring these basic rights, even after a federal judge ruled that the president's actions likely violated the law. What's worse, now the administration is refusing to honor the contracts that we've already negotiated, raising serious concerns about the safety of our worksites, and our ability to advocate for adequate protections. Under normal circumstances, Army Corps workers could appeal the president's actions to the agency tasked with safeguarding our collective bargaining rights, the Federal Labor Relations Authority (FLRA). But the president created chaos at the agency when he fired the Chair, Susan Tsui Grundmann. Now the FLRA is refusing to hear our case challenging these decisions, which also means we have no access to federal courts to resolve our disagreement. This administration isn't just breaking the law—it's breaking the system that's supposed to uphold it. And this of course is by design. Trump's attacks on unions are part of a larger effort to weaken workers' rights across the country. But as it turns out, the opposite is happening. More Americans than ever approve of unions. And in Sacramento alone, hundreds of federal workers want to organize with our union. It appears that Trump and his allies are underestimating federal workers at the Army Corps. Every one of us takes an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic. That oath matters. And this administration is not going to stop us from honoring it. We're not just speaking out for ourselves. We're speaking out for the millions of Americans who rely on the services we provide, especially during times of crisis. Trump is trying to break the civil servants at the Army Corps. But we're still here. We're still uniting more workers. And we're not going anywhere. Colin Smalley is a geologist with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and president of Local 777 of the International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers in Chicago. The views presented are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of the Department of Defense or its components. This disclaimer is required by regulation.

Native Americans rail against Trump's call to change Commanders' name back.
Native Americans rail against Trump's call to change Commanders' name back.

USA Today

time2 days ago

  • USA Today

Native Americans rail against Trump's call to change Commanders' name back.

Native American groups had fought for years to get Washington's NFL team to change its name. Trump just renewed the battle. WASHINGTON ‒ Native American groups fought for years to get this city's National Football League team to change its name. Now, President Donald Trump wants to change it back to a moniker many Native Americans consider offensive and disrespectful. 'No Native American child should have to sit through a pep rally or in a stadium where their culture is being mocked,' said Jacqueline De León, senior staff attorney for the Native American Rights Fund. Trump threatened over the weekend to block a deal to build a stadium in Washington, D.C., if the Washington Commanders team refuses to revert to the name it had from 1937 when the team moved from Boston until 2022. "The Washington 'Whatever's' should IMMEDIATELY change their name back to the Washington Redskins Football Team," Trump posted on his Truth Social site. 'I may put a restriction on them that if they don't change the name back to the original 'Washington Redskins,' and get rid of the ridiculous moniker, 'Washington Commanders.'' In a post the same day, Trump said Native Americans would welcome the change. "Our great Indian people, in massive numbers, want this to happen," he wrote in a post that also encouraged the Cleveland Guardians to revert to a former name. "Their heritage and prestige is systematically being taken away from them. Times are different now than they were three or four years ago. We are a Country of passion and common sense. OWNERS, GET IT DONE!!!' But that's not what USA TODAY found when reaching out to Native American activists. Native Americans are not mascots, said Savannah Romero, a member of the enrolled member of the Eastern Shoshone Nation, who urged city officials not to yield to the name change. 'We are language keepers, land protectors, survivors of attempted genocide, and a part of sovereign nations," Romero, co-founder and deputy director of the BLIS (Black Liberation-Indigenous Sovereignty) Collective Collective, said in a statement. "To equate Native people with cartoonish mascots alongside animals is a gross and ongoing tactic of dehumanization.' 'Disrespectful to the pain and suffering' Trump's move comes in the wake of efforts across the country to ban the use of Native American mascots and logos in schools, including in New York. The Native American Rights Fund supported efforts in New York to ban the use of such mascots. It recently released a video pushing back against the use of Native American mascots. In a June 17 announcement, the Department of Education called the ban 'an unlawful attempt to ban mascots and logos that celebrate Native American history.'' De León said that challenge is part of the larger narrative by the Trump administration to muddy the waters and undermine civil rights protections. It's not racist to push back against racism, she said. 'Native Americans are being used as tools for a distraction,' De León said. 'That's very disrespectful to the pain and suffering imposed on Native people by inaccurately depicting our culture.' More: Why some Native American citizens worry about getting caught in ICE's net Beth Wright, a member of Pueblo of Laguna, said the United States has long tried to erase Native identity and culture, including through federal Indian boarding schools, banning Native religious and cultural practices and seizing control over Native lands. 'Native people are still working to revitalize what the United States tried to erase,'' said Wright, a staff attorney with the Native American Rights Fund. 'Native mascots work directly against these efforts by perpetuating false historical narratives about Native people and false depictions of who Native people are today.'' 'It's a slur' In 2013, the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, a coalition of more than 200 groups, approved a resolution calling for owners of the Washington team to change its name. The resolution called for the elimination of names and mascots 'that promote negative stereotypes and connotations or that trivialize Native American cultures.'' De León, who had lived in the Washington, D.C., area for several years, said it hurt when she saw people wearing shirts with the old name. 'I don't even like to say the word because it's a slur,' she said.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store