Standing Rock appeals dismissal of latest Dakota Access Pipeline lawsuit
The Standing Rock Sioux Tribe is asking the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals to review a federal judge's decision to dismiss its latest lawsuit against the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers over the Dakota Access Pipeline.
Standing Rock filed the lawsuit in October, asking the court to find the pipeline must be shut down because it still lacks an easement authorizing it to pass under the Missouri River's Lake Oahe reservoir, which is regulated by the Army Corps.
'The Corps of Engineers has not earned the trust of our Tribe,' Standing Rock Chairwoman Janet Alkire said in a statement last week announcing the appeal. 'We cannot rely on the Corps to properly evaluate DAPL, so we are continuing our legal efforts to protect our water and our people from this dangerous pipeline.'
Greenpeace seeks reversal of verdict, arguing jury wanted to 'punish' someone for pipeline protests
The Army Corps originally granted the easement to the pipeline's developer in 2017, but Boasberg revoked it in 2020 after finding the agency had issued the permit without completing the full environmental review required by federal law. The matter was brought to him through a lawsuit the tribe filed against the Army Corps in 2016.
Boasberg at the time directed the Corps to withhold making a decision on the easement until it completes a full environmental impact study. He also ordered the pipeline to be shut down, though that demand was later reversed by an appellate court.
Five years later, the Army Corps still has not finished the environmental review. It published a draft in late 2023.
Standing Rock in its latest suit argues that keeping the pipeline open without an easement is a violation of federal law. The tribe also alleges the Army Corps is at fault for a number of other regulatory violations related to the pipeline.
In court filings, Standing Rock has said it intends to present new evidence related to the pipeline's safety. The pipeline company has indicated previously it does not consider that information credible.
U.S. District Court Judge James Boasberg tossed the suit in March, finding that the courts cannot intervene in the matter until the Army Corps wraps up its environmental study.
'No matter its frustration with Defendants' sluggish pace, it is not yet entitled to a second bite at the apple,' he wrote in his March order.
Boasberg previously indicated that while the agency works on the study, it has the option of enforcing its property rights since the pipeline is operating on federal land without authorization.
'The Corps has conspicuously declined to adopt a conclusive position regarding the pipeline's continued operation, despite repeated prodding from this Court and the Court of Appeals to do so,' he wrote in a 2021 order.
Standing Rock leaders say they hope the D.C. Circuit will overturn Boasberg's decision to dismiss the case.
In her statement, Alkire said the tribe fears the Army Corps' study will 'whitewash' the pipeline's risk to the surrounding environment.
The pipeline crosses Lake Oahe just north of the Standing Rock Reservation. The tribe opposes the Dakota Access Pipeline as a threat to its sovereignty, water supply and cultural heritage sites.
Federal judge dismisses Standing Rock's latest lawsuit over Dakota Access Pipeline
Alkire also underscored the tribe's dismay over a March jury verdict that found the environmental group Greenpeace at fault for damaging the pipeline developers property and business as part of its protests against Dakota Access Pipeline. The jury ordered Greenpeace to pay the company, Energy Transfer, roughly $667 million.
Standing Rock has criticized the verdict as based on a false narrative that Greenpeace, and not Standing Rock and other tribes, led the protests.
'We saw Energy Transfer's efforts to re-write history as we know it and lived it in their lawsuit against Greenpeace,' she said.
In April, another federal judge ordered the Army Corps to pay North Dakota $28 million in connection to the anti-pipeline protests, finding the agency's actions had wrongfully forced the state to pay millions policing the protests and cleaning up the aftermath.
The Dakota Access Pipeline passes through unceded land previously recognized as belonging to the Sioux Nation in 19th century treaties with the U.S. government.
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
USA Today
13 hours ago
- USA Today
Judge weighs disciplinary action for DOJ lawyers in Venezuelan deportations
WASHINGTON – U.S. District Judge James Boasberg said on July 24 he may initiate disciplinary proceedings against Justice Department lawyers for their conduct in a lawsuit brought by Venezuelans challenging their removal to a high-security Salvadoran prison in March. More: How Trump's clash with the courts is brewing into an 'all-out war' Boasberg, a prominent Washington, D.C., judge who has drawn President Donald Trump's ire, said during a court hearing that a recent whistleblower complaint had strengthened the argument that Trump administration officials engaged in criminal contempt of court by failing to bring deportation flights back to the United States. More: Near 'constitutional crisis': Legal showdown over deportations of Venezuelans: Recap Boasberg also raised the prospect of referring Justice Department lawyers to state bar associations, which have the authority to discipline attorneys for unethical conduct. "I will certainly be assessing whether government counsel's conduct and veracity to the court warrant a referral to state bars or our grievance committee, which determines lawyers' fitness to practice in our court," Boasberg said. A Justice Department spokesperson declined to comment. Boasberg has been hearing an American Civil Liberties Union lawsuit brought on behalf of alleged Venezuelan gang members removed from the United States under a rarely invoked 18th-century law. The detainees in the case were returned to Venezuela last week as part of a prisoner exchange, after spending four months in El Salvador's CECOT prison. More: Shackles, shock troops, windowless cells: How bad is Trump's favorite Salvadoran prison? The migrants' lawyers have disputed the gang membership claims and said their clients were not given a chance to contest the government's assertions. Boasberg said in April that the Trump administration appeared to have acted 'in bad faith' when it hurriedly assembled three deportation flights on March 15 at the same time that he was conducting emergency court proceedings to assess the legality of the effort. In court filings, Justice Department lawyers have disputed that they disobeyed a court order, saying remarks Boasberg made from the bench were not legally binding. In a 2-1 order, a federal appeals court in April temporarily paused Boasberg's effort to investigate whether the Trump administration engaged in criminal contempt. Boasberg said during Thursday's hearing that the delay from the appeals court was frustrating for the plaintiffs, and that a whistleblower complaint from Erez Reuveni, a former Justice Department attorney who was fired in April, strengthened the contempt case. Reuveni described three separate incidents when Justice Department leaders defied court orders related to the deportation of immigrants living in the country without legal status. Attorney General Pam Bondi in a post on X called Reuveni a "disgruntled employee" and a "leaker."
17 hours ago
Judge to weigh legal rights of Venezuelan nationals recently released from CECOT
One week after more than 250 Venezuelan nationals were released to their home country from a mega-prison in El Salvador, a federal judge is holding a hearing Thursday to determine what due process rights the men may be entitled to after they were removed from the U.S. under the Alien Enemies Act. In June, U.S. District Judge James Boasberg ruled that the men, who were then being held in El Salvador's CECOT facility, were entitled to practice their due process rights to challenge their detentions. Boasberg had ordered the Trump administration to come up with a plan to allow the men to challenge their detentions from El Salvador by June 11, but a federal appeals court put that deadline on hold. With the men now in Venezuela, Boasberg scheduled a conference Thursday to determine the next steps in a class-action lawsuit filed by the families of the removed men. In March the Trump administration invoked the Alien Enemies Act -- an 18th century wartime authority used to remove noncitizens with little-to-no due process -- to deport two planeloads of alleged migrant gang members to the CECOT mega-prison in El Salvador by arguing that the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua is a "hybrid criminal state" that is invading the United States. An official with the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement acknowledged shortly afterward that "many" of the men deported on March 15 lacked criminal records in the United States -- but said that "the lack of specific information about each individual" actually "demonstrates that they are terrorists with regard to whom we lack a complete profile." In a filing last week, lawyers for the former detainees argued that they should still be able to practice the due process rights they were deprived of when they were removed from the country with little notice under an authority that multiple judges have ruled is unlawful. "Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court request an immediate status update from the government as to whether it is prepared to bring the members of the class back to the United States for habeas proceedings," they argued. As part of a series of lawsuits that began in March when Trump issued the proclamation invoking the Alien Enemies Act, Judge Boabserg has sharply criticized the conduct of the Trump administration and considered holding officials in contempt. In an order last month, Boasberg rebuked the Trump administration for detaining the men on "flimsy, even frivolous, accusations" and failing to provide them with a meaningful opportunity to exercise their rights. "Defendants instead spirited away plane loads of people before any such challenge could be made. And now, significant evidence has come to light indicating that many of those currently entombed in CECOT have no connection to the gang and thus languish in a foreign prison on flimsy, even frivolous, accusations," Judge Boasberg wrote.
Newsweek
3 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.
