Description: Challenge to the City of Portland laws and policies that allegedly prohibit new fuel-export infrastructure in the City.
-
Montana v. City of Portland
Case Documents:
Filing Date Type File Action Taken Summary 02/26/2023 Findings and Recommendations Download Magistrate judge recommended that all claims be dismissed. Federal Magistrate Recommended Dismissal of Challenge to Portland Restrictions on Fossil Fuel Terminals. A magistrate judge in the federal district court for the District of Oregon recommended that the court dismiss a lawsuit challenging a City of Portland ordinance restricting construction or expansion of bulk fossil fuel terminals. The lawsuit was brought by the State of Montana, several trade groups, and a Washington-based fuel distributor. Although the magistrate recommended that the court find that the distributor had standing based on the ordinance’s alleged negative impact on property value, the magistrate concluded that the plaintiffs failed to state any claims. The magistrate found that the ordinance did not discriminate against interstate commerce, that neither the Foreign Commerce Clause nor other federal law displaced or preempted the ordinance, and that the ordinance did not violate plaintiffs’ substantive due process rights. 02/14/2023 Complaint Download Complaint filed. Lawsuit in Oregon Federal Court Challenged Portland’s Restrictions on Fuel-Export Infrastructure. The State of Montana, several trade groups, and a Washington-based fuel distributor filed a lawsuit in the federal district court for the District of Oregon challenging City of Portland laws and policies that allegedly prohibit new fuel-export infrastructure in the City. The plaintiffs asserted that the laws and policies “intentionally discriminate in favor of local users, unreasonably burden interstate commerce, interfere with intermodal/rail transportation, and serve no legitimate local purpose” and therefore violate the Dormant Commerce Clause, Foreign Commerce Clause, and Due Process Clause, and are preempted by the Interstate Commerce Commission Termination Act of 1995. The complaint’s allegations included that the City’s “categorical prohibition on all new infrastructure for transportation of combustible fuel” was intended to advance an illegitimate extraterritorial goal of decreasing global emissions but that the prohibition did not advance this goal because it applied overbroadly to fuel that is “transitional, clean, renewable, and/or results in lower emissions.” The plaintiffs also alleged that that the laws and policies would not lower emissions within the City because they did not limit distribution and use of fuel within the City and surrounding areas.