• Skip to main content
  • Home
  • Contact
  • About
  • Search
    • Search US
    • Search Global
  • Global Litigation
  • U.S. Litigation

White Earth Nation v. Kerry

Filing Date: 2014
Case Categories:
  • Federal Statutory Claims
    • NEPA
Principal Laws:
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
Description: Challenge to approvals of cross-border pipelines.
  • White Earth Nation v. Kerry
    Docket number(s): 14-cv-04726
    Court/Admin Entity: D. Minn.
    Case Documents:
    Filing Date Type File Action Taken Summary
    12/09/2015 Memorandum Opinion and Order Download Action dismissed. Minnesota Federal Court Dismissed Challenges to Cross-Border Pipeline Projects. The federal district court for the District of Minnesota dismissed an action challenging the State Department’s approvals of the replacement of a segment of an oil pipeline that crossed the U.S.-Canada border and the expansion of the capacity of another cross-border pipeline. The plaintiffs—who alleged they would be affected by the impacts of increased greenhouse gas emissions from the refining and end-use of tar sands crude oil from Canada—contended that the State Department had failed to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act and the National Historic Preservation Act. The court said that the State Department’s actions were not subject to judicial review because they were presidential actions not reviewable under the Administrative Procedure Act.
    11/11/2014 Complaint Download Complaint filed. An Indian tribe and seven environmental, conservation, and community organizations brought a lawsuit under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) challenging the U.S. Department of State’s approval of a new pipeline for importing heavy tar sands crude oil from Alberta, Canada, to a terminal facility in Wisconsin. The lawsuit, filed in the federal district court for the District of Minnesota, also challenged the State Department’s authorization of the diversion of 800,000 barrels per day to a pipeline segment purportedly constructed as part of an existing pipeline. Plaintiffs argued that approval of this diversion undermined the NEPA review of a request to increase the volume of oil imported on a pipeline known as the “Alberta Clipper.” Plaintiffs alleged that they brought the lawsuit on their own behalf as well as on behalf of their members who use areas that will be affected by air and water pollution from the pipeline projects and by the impacts of increased greenhouse gas emissions from the refining and end-use of tar sands crude oil.

© 2023 · Sabin Center for Climate Change Law · U.S. Litigation Chart made in collaboration with Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP

The materials on this website are intended to provide a general summary of the law and do not constitute legal advice. You should consult with counsel to determine applicable legal requirements in a specific fact situation.