Description: Challenge to right-of-way and temporary use permit for Keystone XL to cross federal lands.
Bold Alliance v. U.S. Department of the Interior
Filing Date Type File Action Taken Summary 04/04/2022 Order Download Case dismissed without prejudice. 03/08/2022 Stipulation Download Joint stipulation of dismissal filed. Parties Agreed to Dismissal of Challenge to Grant of Right-of-Way for Keystone XL. In another case in Montana federal district court challenging Trump-era authorizations for the Keystone XL project, environmental groups, federal defendants, and the project’s developers stipulated to the voluntary dismissal without prejudice of a challenge to a right-of-way and a temporary use permit for the pipeline to cross federal land. 01/14/2022 Order Download Joint motion to extend the stay granted. 12/20/2021 Status Report Download Parties filed joint status report and motion to extend stay. 10/20/2021 Order Download Joint motion to extend stay for 60 days granted. 10/18/2021 Status Report Download Joint status report and motion to extend stay filed. 08/18/2021 Order Download Joint motion to extend stay granted. 08/06/2021 Status Report Download Parties filed joint status report and motion to extend stay. 06/16/2021 Order Download Case stayed until August 6, 2021. 06/14/2021 Motion Download Joint motion for stay filed. 05/04/2021 Motion Download Joint third motion filed for an extension of the summary judgment briefing schedule. 07/14/2020 Complaint Download Complaint filed. Groups Challenged Federal Lands Right-of-Way for Keystone XL. Environmental and conservation groups filed a lawsuit in federal court in Montana challenging the U.S. Bureau of Land Management's (BLM’s) granting of a right-of-way and temporary use permit for Keystone XL to cross federal land in Montana. The court previously dismissed a claim against BLM without prejudice because BLM had yet to act. In the new complaint, the plaintiffs alleged that the revised documents that BLM relied on still violated the National Environmental Policy Act, the Endangered Species Act, and Administrative Procedure Act because the federal defendants made only a “cursory attempt to rectify the problems identified by the court” in its review of the cross-border permit issued by the Department of State. The plaintiffs alleged, among other things, that BLM based its decision, including a conclusion that climate impacts were minimal, on faulty environmental analyses, and that BLM therefore “failed to rationally assess whether granting a right-of-way for Keystone XL was consistent with the Bureau’s multiple-use mandate.”