Description: Challenge to President Biden's revocation of the presidential permit for the Keystone XL pipeline and associated actions.
-
Texas v. Biden
Case Documents:
Filing Date Type File Action Taken Summary 01/06/2022 Memorandum Opinion and Order Download Motion to dismiss granted. Texas Federal Court Said Challenge to Revocation of Keystone XL Permit Was Moot. The federal district court for the Southern District of Texas dismissed a lawsuit brought by Texas and 22 other states to challenge President Biden’s January 2021 revocation of the presidential permit for the Keystone XL crude oil pipeline project. The permit allowed construction of a 1.2-mile segment of the pipeline that crossed the Canada-U.S. border. The project’s developers announced their termination of the project in June 2021. The court found that the case was moot since the project had been terminated, and that the exception to mootness for cases capable of repetition but evading review did not apply, both because the plaintiffs did not demonstrate that it would be “virtually impossible to litigate the validity” of Biden’s action because of the short duration of the process and also because any recurrence would require judicial intervention. 09/22/2021 Amicus Brief Download Brief filed by TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, L.P. and TC Energy Corporation as amici curiae in support of defendants as to mootness. 09/20/2021 Reply Download Reply filed by defendants in support of their motion to dismiss. 07/13/2021 Order Download Discovery stayed pending decision on motion to dismiss. On July 13, 2021, the federal district court for the Southern District of Texas stayed discovery until the motion to dismiss was decided, citing “unique circumstances” due to separate of powers concerns related to seeking discovery against the president and vice president, and also due to the “expansive scope” of proposed discovery, especially since the case appeared to involve a “purely legal question” about the scope of presidential authority. 07/12/2021 Motion to Dismiss Download Motion to dismiss filed. In the case challenging President Biden’s revocation of the presidential permit for the Keystone XL project, the federal government moved to dismiss, arguing that the case was moot, that the court lacked jurisdiction to grant relief against the president and the agency defendants, and that the states lacked standing, which also made venue improper. The defendants also argued that the states failed to state a separation of powers claim or a non-delegation claim. 06/24/2021 Order Download Motion for extension of time to respond to first amended complaint granted. In a lawsuit brought by Texas and 22 other states in the federal district court for the Southern District of Texas, the court granted the federal defendants’ requests for extensions of time to file their motion to dismiss, which will argue that the case is moot. The defendants requested the extensions with the consent of the states, who said they were evaluating the issue. The motion to dismiss is currently due on July 13. 06/23/2021 Motion Download Consent motion filed by defendants for extension of time to respond to the first amended complaint. 06/01/2021 Complaint Download First amended complaint filed. 03/17/2021 Complaint Download Complaint filed. States Said Biden’s Revocation of Keystone XL Permit Violated Separation of Powers. A lawsuit filed by 21 states in the federal district court for the Southern District of Texas asserted that President Biden’s revocation of the presidential permit for the Keystone XL pipeline and associated actions by cabinet officials violated the Constitution and the Administrative Procedure Act. The states contended that President Biden’s actions encroached on congressional power over interstate and international commerce and therefore violated the Constitution’s separation of powers. They alleged that although Biden invoked a “climate crisis,” “ ‘imperatives of events’ have not prevailed such that the President’s unenumerated powers entitle him to supersede the enumerated power of Congress to regulate … foreign and interstate commerce.” In addition, the complaint asserted that the cabinet officials acted outside their statutory authority, that the revocation of the permit violated the non-delegation doctrine, that it was arbitrary and capricious, and that it should have gone through notice and comments.