Description: Lawsuit challenging 2018 amendments to a Louisiana law that prohibits unauthorized entry of critical infrastructure by expanding the definition of critical infrastructure to include 125,000 miles of pipelines.
-
White Hat v. Landry
Case Documents:
Filing Date Type File Action Taken Summary 05/05/2021 Ruling Download Motion to dismiss with respect to landowner and organization plaintiffs granted and defendants' motions otherwise denied. Louisiana Federal Court Allowed Pipeline Protesters to Proceed with Constitutional Challenge to Critical Infrastructure Statute. In a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of a Louisiana criminal statute that identified pipelines as critical infrastructure, the federal district court for the Western District of Louisiana ruled that organizational and landowner plaintiffs lacked standing but allowed plaintiffs who had been arrested while protesting construction of the Bayou Bridge Pipeline to proceed with their claims. Although the court found that at least some of the organizational plaintiffs had alleged injury-in-fact with allegations that included specific examples of members being charged with misdemeanors or threatened while protesting near pipelines as well as allegations of the organizations’ involvement in organizing pipeline protests, the court concluded that none of the organizations or their members had alleged causation or redressability since the alleged injuries did not pertain to protest activities under the enforcement and prosecutorial authority of the remaining two defendants. With respect to the landowner plaintiffs, who had granted permission for the arrestee plaintiffs to protest on their property, the court found that neither the landowners’ allegations regarding their concern about environmental and health impacts in communities affected by the Bayou Bridge Pipeline and about threats posed by climate change nor their allegations that the law limited their use and enjoyment of their property satisfied the injury-in-fact standard. The court also ruled that the claims against the former sheriff of St. Martin Parish were not mooted by the fact that he no longer held the office; instead, since he was sued in his official capacity, his successor should be substituted. The court also concluded that the Younger abstention doctrine did not apply because there was no ongoing state proceeding in which the arrestee plaintiffs could challenge their prosecution. -
White Hat v. Landry
Case Documents:
Filing Date Type File Action Taken Summary 07/30/2020 Ruling Download Motions to dismiss granted in part and denied in part and case transferred. Federal Court Transferred Challenge to Louisiana’s Criminal Statute Barring Unauthorized Entry of Pipelines, Dismissed Claims Against State Attorney General. In a case challenging the facial and as-applied constitutionality of Louisiana’s law prohibiting entry of critical infrastructure including pipelines, the federal district court for the Middle District of Louisiana denied motions to dismiss claims against a district attorney and sheriff in St. Martin Parish, where some of the plaintiffs were arrested while protesting construction of the Bayou Bridge Pipeline. The court dismissed claims against the Louisiana attorney general, finding that he was not a proper defendant under Ex Parte Young. Although the court concluded that venue over a constitutional challenge to a state statute was appropriate in the state’s capitol, the court granted a motion to transfer the case to the Western District of Louisiana, finding that transfer was more convenient for the parties and witnesses and in the interest of justice. 05/22/2019 Complaint Download Complaint filed. Lawsuit Filed Challenging Louisiana Law That Targeted Pipeline Protests. Pipeline opponents, a journalist, landowners, community leaders, and environmental justice organizations filed a federal lawsuit challenging 2018 amendments to a Louisiana law that prohibits unauthorized entry of critical infrastructure. The complaint alleged that the amendments expanded the definition of critical infrastructure to include 125,000 miles of pipelines, which in many cases are not visible or clearly marked. The plaintiffs asserted that the law was unconstitutional on its face and as applied because it is unconstitutionally vague and allows for arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement, is overbroad, has a chilling effect on protected speech, and targets speech with a particular viewpoint for harsher punishment. They alleged that “the law’s vagueness, overbreadth, and unconstitutional aim are glaringly apparent in the felony arrests of pipeline opponents engaged in non-violent protest immediately after the law went into effect.”