January, 09 2015, 11:45am EDT
For Immediate Release
Contact:
Expert Contact: Luísa Abbott-Galvão, (202) 222-0716, labbotgalvao@foe.org
Communications Contact: EA Dyson, (202) 222-0730, edyson@foe.org
Nebraska Supreme Court Denies Landowners Standing to Defend Their Land From Dirty Pipeline
On Friday, the Nebraska Supreme Court struck down a lower court ruling that deemed a law granting the governor's authority to approve the Keystone XL pipeline in violation of the Nebraska constitution. This ruling effectively approves TransCanada's pipeline route through Nebraska. However, TransCanada's permit in South Dakota has expired, and the Public Utility Commission there is reviewing its application.
Friends of the Earth's Climate and energy associate Luisa Abbott Galvao issued the following statement:
WASHINGTON
On Friday, the Nebraska Supreme Court struck down a lower court ruling that deemed a law granting the governor's authority to approve the Keystone XL pipeline in violation of the Nebraska constitution. This ruling effectively approves TransCanada's pipeline route through Nebraska. However, TransCanada's permit in South Dakota has expired, and the Public Utility Commission there is reviewing its application.
Friends of the Earth's Climate and energy associate Luisa Abbott Galvao issued the following statement:
Today a majority of the Nebraska Supreme Court determined that the decision to grant approval for Keystone XL was contrary to the Nebraska Constitution. Unfortunately, three justices decided that Nebraskans should not have standing to challenge a foreign oil company in their court and refused to decide the merits of the case. Today's ruling is an affront to citizens' land rights and democratic self-determination. It continues a trend of everyday Americans being barred access to our courts.
Today's decision does not change the fact that Keystone XL is not in our national interest. Keystone XL will put communities, national water resources and agricultural land at risk, and light the fuse to a giant carbon bomb. The pipeline fails President Obama's climate test and he has all the information he needs to reject it immediately.
Friends of the Earth fights for a more healthy and just world. Together we speak truth to power and expose those who endanger the health of people and the planet for corporate profit. We organize to build long-term political power and campaign to change the rules of our economic and political systems that create injustice and destroy nature.
(202) 783-7400LATEST NEWS
‘These Guys Can’t Help Themselves’: Cruz Pushes $200 Billion Capital Gains Tax Cut Without OK From Congress
Republican senators said they were seeking to end an "unfair inflation tax on everyday Americans." But nearly all the benefits of their proposal would go to the wealthiest 1%.
Mar 03, 2026
Two leading Republicans are pushing for the Trump administration to issue another $200 billion tax cut, primarily to the wealthiest Americans, without congressional approval.
The Washington Post reported Tuesday that Sens. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and Tim Scott (R-SC) sent a letter to Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent urging him to use executive authority to lower the federal tax on capital gains—the profits from selling stocks, bonds, real estate, and other investments.
The senators have proposed that capital gains taxes should be “indexed for inflation." As the Post explained:
The plan pushed by Cruz and Scott has been sought by conservatives for many years. Under current law, an investor who bought $100 worth of stock in 1990 and sold it today for $300 would currently owe capital gains taxes on the full $200 in profit. But the $100 investment in 1990 would be worth roughly $230 in today’s dollars after accounting for inflation. Under the Cruz-Scott proposal, the investor would only owe taxes on that $70, rather than the full $200.
The senators called on Bessent to "eliminate" this "unfair inflation tax on everyday Americans."
According to Federal Reserve data from 2025, the richest 1% of Americans owned about half of all stocks, while the poorest 50% owned only 1%.
Republicans' so-called One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA), which enacted massive cuts to social programs like Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) last summer, is already estimated to funnel more than $1 trillion to the top 1% of earners over the next 10 years, according to the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy.
It is unclear whether Bessent would even have the power to change how gains are taxed without an act of Congress, or if Bessent has any interest in doing so. But the vast majority of the benefits from Cruz and Scott's proposal, if enacted, would likely go to the rich as well.
When the Trump administration first considered indexing capital gains taxes to inflation back in 2018, the Penn Wharton Budget Model projected that 63% of the benefits would flow to the richest 0.1%—those making tens of millions per year—while 86% would go to the top 1%.
Those in the bottom 90% of earners would see just over 2% of the overall benefits, with those in the bottom half receiving basically nothing.
According to the Post, the senators view lowering capital gains taxes as part of a GOP bid to "improve its economic approval rating with voters ahead of the 2026 midterm elections," in which the party is expected to take a walloping, according to current polls.
Voters have not responded kindly to previous bills that handed lavish tax breaks to the rich. At the time of its passage, the OBBBA was one of the least popular pieces of legislation in modern history, with several polls showing nearly a 2-to-1 disapproval rating.
But Cruz and Scott are pushing for this policy change despite the public revulsion and the fact that the Department of Justice has previously ruled that the Treasury Department can't make policy without Congress' approval.
"Ted Cruz is asking the Treasury Department to break the law to give another round of tax breaks to the ultrarich," remarked Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), the ranking member of the Senate Finance Committee. "These guys can't help themselves."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Pressure Builds on US Lawmakers to Support Iran War Powers Resolution
"Lawmakers should have no doubt that this will be their equivalent of the Iraq War vote," said one observer.
Mar 03, 2026
Sponsors and supporters of bipartisan resolutions aimed at limiting US President Donald Trump's power to attack Iran are strongly urging Congress to back the measures when they're up for votes later this week, with some observers evoking the specter of the Iraq quagmire as a warning against yet another protracted and illegal war.
Anticipating Trump's June 2025 attack on Iran's nuclear facilities and scientists, Reps. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) and Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) introduced H.Con.Res.38, which directs the president to "remove United States armed forces from unauthorized hostilities" against Iran. The measure has 83 other co-sponsors, all of them Democrats.
In the upper chamber, Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) also introduced a war powers resolution, S.J.Res.59, last June.
"As a principled opponent of military adventurism since America’s 2003 invasion of Iraq, I was devastated this weekend when we learned that once again, American service members will be coming home in body bags," Khanna wrote in an opinion piece published Tuesday by Fox News.
"Trump announced: 'There will likely be more before it ends. That’s the way it is,'" Khanna added. "No. That’s not the way it is. That must not be the way it is. As Trump now refuses to rule out sending ground troops to Iran, I believe we must do everything in our power to stop this horrific war of choice before more Americans are killed."
At least six US troops and, according to the Iranian Red Crescent Society, nearly 800 Iranians have been killed since Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu launched the war on Saturday.
"The Constitution says we're not supposed to be at war without a vote of Congress," Kaine told NPR. "This is important. The lives of our troops are at risk. We ought to come back to Washington right away and vote on this."
As every single democrat in the universe should.
— Craig (@thelordgod.bsky.social) March 3, 2026 at 1:13 PM
The resolutions had been scheduled for debate and votes before Trump ordered the attack on Iran. With the war underway, some observers doubt whether passage of the measures would be an effective curb on the president's military campaign. If passed, Congress would likely have to vote on overriding Trump's anticipated vetoes, with an all-but-impossible two-thirds majority needed in both chambers.
The War Powers Resolution of 1973—also known as the War Powers Act—requires the president to notify lawmakers within 48 hours of committing troops to military action, and limits such action to 60 days, with a 30-day withdrawal period, unless Congress declares war or issues an authorization for the use of military force.
On Tuesday, six House Democrats—members of a faction that was reportedly working to thwart votes on the two resolutions—introduced a competing war powers resolution that would give Trump a month to continue the war without congressional approval.
“Of course Democrats who raced to applaud Trump’s illegal war in Iran—and in one case was pardoned by him—would draft a pro-war war powers resolution meant to sabotage the real war powers resolution receiving a vote this week," Demand Progress senior policy adviser Cavan Kharrazian said in response to the reporting.
Numerous groups are imploring Congress to pass the two original resolutions.
“President Trump—and Congress if it does not act to stop him—has effectively ceded American war-making authority to indicted war criminal Benjamin Netanyahu and dragged our nation into an unconstitutional war," Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) government affairs director Robert McCaw said Tuesday. "That is not self-defense. That is executive submission to Israel’s regional ambitions and warmongering."
“Six American service members are dead. More than 180 Iranian schoolchildren and teachers have been killed along with hundreds of others, as well as people in various countries," McCaw continued. "These are not abstractions. These are human beings lost in a war Congress never authorized and the American people never wanted."
“No president has the authority to start a war without congressional authorization for the benefit of a foreign government," he added. "The Constitution does not delegate war-making authority to foreign governments. It vests that power in Congress, and Congress must stop this war.”
Amid a massive anti-Iraq war movement in 2003, 72% of people in the U.S. still supported going to war.Today, even without an overwhelming anti-war movement, only 18% of people support war against Iran.This war is senseless, illegal, and unpopular. End it now.
— Institute for Policy Studies (@ips-dc.org) March 3, 2026 at 5:02 AM
Lisa Gilbert, co-president of the consumer advocacy group Public Citizen, said after Trump launched the attack on Iran that “the president who so pathetically claims to be deserving of a Nobel Peace Prize has launched a deadly and unconstitutional regime change war."
“There is no congressional declaration of war nor authorization for the use of force in Iran, making Trump’s actions transparently unconstitutional and illegal," Gilbert continued. "Importantly, Trump’s actions in Iran would be illegal under international law even if there were congressional authorization. Iran poses no imminent security threat to the United States."
"Exactly like the Iraq War Trump untruthfully claimed to have opposed, this is a war of choice driven by arrogance and imperial ambition," she added. "And exactly like the Iraq War, the risks are manifold—with needless short-term deaths inevitable and long-term consequences unknowable."
"Congress must act immediately to end this illegal and unconstitutional aggression," Gilbert stressed.
The progressive political action group Our Revolution said in an email that "Trump's illegal war with Iran is spiraling out of control—and Congress has only hours left to slam on the brakes."
"It could not be clearer that Trump has dragged us into a war with no endgame, no congressional debate, and no concern for who gets killed," the group added. "But with the House and Senate vote... we have a crucial chance to stop another forever war."
At the peace group Win Without War, deputy director Shayna Lewis said that “this war is flatly illegal—neither authorized by Congress, nor justified under any international law."
"Trump has similarly failed to make his case to the US public in any way," Lewis noted. "Instead, he has capriciously upended critical diplomatic negotiations to ignite a major, open-ended, region-wide war."
“While Trump has tried to portray himself as an ally to brave protesters in Iran facing grave violence, the Iranian government’s horrific record does not justify this reckless push to war," she contended. "We know from decades of tragic US-led interventions that bombs do not deliver peace and freedom to people struggling under brutal regimes."
“Congress must convene immediately and end this illegal war," Lewis added. "This week both the House and Senate will have yet another chance at passing war powers resolutions to rein in our out-of-control president. They owe it to their constituents, their constitutional duty, and people across the globe to vote yes.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
Experts Worldwide Agree: US-Israel Attack on Iran a Clear Violation of International Law
"Before more children are burned alive or buried under rubble, this lawless war must end."
Mar 03, 2026
Experts on international law throughout the world have concluded that the unprovoked US-Israeli attack on Iran that began on Saturday is illegal.
Adil Ahmad Haque, a Rutgers Law School professor, wrote an analysis for Just Security published on Monday that called the attacks by the US and Israel a "manifest violation of the United Nations Charter," which "prohibits the use of force against another State unless that use of force is authorized by the UN Security Council or is a necessary and proportionate act of individual or collective self-defense in response to an armed attack."
Haque also argued that Iran, in responding to the attacks, violated the UN Charter by launching drone strikes against US allies throughout the Middle East, even though none of those nations had taken part in the US-Israeli operations.
"The United States, Israel, and Iran, have each violated international law," Haque concluded. "Hundreds of civilians have paid the price. Before more children are burned alive or buried under rubble, this lawless war must end."
Marko Milanovic, a University of Reading School of Law professor, wrote at the blog of the European Journal of International Law that the US-Israeli strikes are "manifestly illegal" and "as plain a violation of the prohibition on the use of force in Article 2(4) of the UN Charter as one could possibly have."
Milanovic also said that, leaving legality aside, the war would likely create a humanitarian disaster.
"Maybe, maybe, something good will come out of this... although I very much doubt it," he wrote. "It is far more likely that many innocent people are about to die, in Iran and possibly in Israel, and that their deaths will be for nothing."
The Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) condemned the attacks on Iran as illegal under international law and dismissed any claims by US and Israel that they were necessary to liberate Iranians from a tyrannical government.
"Claims that launching an unprovoked and illegal attack is about defending human rights ring hollow," CIEL wrote, "when military strikes have already killed hundreds of civilians and intensified suffering as violence escalates—particularly when those same human rights are flagrantly violated by the US and by Israel, both domestically and abroad. Bombs do not yield peace, democracy, climate justice, or human rights."
Amnesty International secretary general Agnès Callamard described the US-Israeli attack as "a grave threat to multilateralism and to the integrity of the international legal order."
Callamard also said the international community needed "to intensify diplomatic efforts to prevent further military escalation to avert additional civilian harm, and halt any further crimes under international law against populations who have already endured decades of repression."
Human rights organization DAWN demanded that the UN General Assembly call an emergency session to declare the Iran attack a violation of the UN Charter.
Omar Shakir, executive director of DAWN, said that the war is also illegal under the US Constitution, which states that the US Congress has the power to declare war.
"This war is patently illegal," Shakir said, "and it must be stopped."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular