

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.

Emilie Surrusco, Earthjustice, eksurrusco@gmail.com, (202) 341-8787, Abbie Marks, Atchafalaya Basinkeeper, basinkeeper@gmail.com, (225) 685-9439, Lindsey Muzzio, Waterkeeper Alliance, lmuzzio@waterkeeper.org, (212) 747-0622 x113, Matt Rota, Gulf Restoration Network, matt@healthygulf.org, 504-525-1528 x206, Julie Rosenzweig, Sierra Club Delta Chapter, Julie.rosenzweig@sierraclub.org, 337-577-8494
Seeking an immediate halt to the controversial Bayou Bridge pipeline, several groups today asked a Louisiana federal court for an immediate injunction on pipeline construction in the Atchafalaya River Basin, one of our nation's ecological crown jewels, as well as surrounding communities and ecosystems.
The groups - Atchafalaya Basinkeeper, the Louisiana Crawfish Producers Association (West), Gulf Restoration Network, Waterkeeper Alliance and Sierra Club, represented by lawyers at Earthjustice - made this request to stop construction from moving forward while a lawsuit, filed on January 11, is being considered by the court. The lawsuit contends that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers issued permits and authorizations for the 162-mile pipeline without adequate environmental review - in a violation of the Clean Water Act and the National Environmental Policy Act.
The Bayou Bridge pipeline project proposes to connect the controversial Dakota Access pipeline, which transports volatile and explosive Bakken crude oil from North Dakota to refineries in St. James Parish and export terminals, forming the southern leg of the Bakken Pipeline. Energy Transfer Partners, which owns the Dakota Access Pipeline and is a joint owner in the proposed Bayou Bridge Pipeline, has one of the worst safety and compliance records in the industry.
"Energy Transfer Partners has a deplorable track record when it comes to respect for our environment and our nation's irreplaceable ecosystems," said Jan Hasselman, an Earthjustice attorney for the plaintiffs. "We can't allow them to run roughshod over the Atchafalaya Basin's bottomland hardwoods, cypress swamps, bayous and backwater lakes - and the communities that rely on them - particularly when the Corps failed to adequately consider the risks posed by this project."
The proposed pipeline threatens to degrade forested swamps in the Atchafalaya Basin, and destroy wild crawfish habitat by making permanent the illegal spoil banks that are already destroying swamps along the Bayou Bridge pipeline right-of-way. Before any more pipelines are built in the Basin, the Corps needs to enforce existing permits and bring illegal rights-of-way back into compliance.
"There are already miles of pipelines crisscrossing the Basin that have decimated our water quality, creating hypoxic water that kills crawfish, and filled the Basin with so much sand that our ability to fight flooding has been seriously compromised," said Jody Meche, a commercial crawfisherman with the Louisiana Crawfish Producers Association, West. "Why should we let a company that has already proven it has no regard for our environment or our way of life do even more harm?"
"Not only is the Atchafalaya Basin critical for migratory birds and the persistence of Cajun culture, but it also protects millions of people from Mississippi River floods," said Dean Wilson, executive director of the Atchafalaya Basinkeeper. "It is negligent for our agencies to continue allowing unrestricted oil development in the Basin without enforcing our environmental laws."
In addition to the harms presented by pipeline spoil banks and tree clearing for construction, the overall health of the basin would be threatened by potential leaks and spills - a routine occurrence for old and new pipelines. One study revealed an average of 20 major spills occur in Louisiana each year.
Federal data shows that Energy Transfer Partners and its subsidiary Sunoco Inc. have been responsible for at least 329 "significant" pipeline incidents across the country in the last decade, and Energy Transfer Partners was responsible for five spills from their new Dakota Access Pipeline in the first six months of operation. On January 24, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission ordered a halt to construction of the Energy Transfer Partners Rover pipeline for a second time because of spills during construction.
"Energy Transfer Partners has proven time and time again that it can neither construct or operate new pipelines without spilling," said Larissa Liebmann, Waterkeeper Alliance Staff Attorney. "This injunction is necessary to protect the communities and waterways from bearing the costs of yet another irresponsible pipeline build-out."
"Losing the delicate wetland forest in the path of this pipeline will cause damage that no amount of money can fix. No amount of money can regrow what Energy Transfer Partners is cutting down today," said Julie Rosenzweig, Director of the Sierra Club Delta Chapter. "Conversely, a delay sufficient to allow plaintiffs' concerns to be heard in court would not pose any risk to ETP that would be irreparable. The balance of fairness is clearly in favor of granting this temporary injunction."
"A company with as egregious a track record as Energy Transfer Partners should not be given free rein to move ahead with construction of their dirty, dangerous pipeline as legal challenges continue," said Sierra Club Beyond Dirty Fuels campaign director Kelly Martin. "There still has not been an adequate review of the damage this pipeline would do to communities and families along its route and allowing construction to continue in the meantime puts them at an unacceptable risk."
"All we are asking is that the people impacted by this pipeline get their day in court before ETP does irreparable harm to the Atchafalaya Basin and the Louisianians who rely on it," said Matt Rota, Gulf Restoration Network Senior Policy Director. "We cannot afford to forsake our waterways and our local economies for an out-of-state company that provides hardly any jobs or economic benefit to the residents of Louisiana."
The preliminary injunction motion is available here. The court will likely issue a schedule for briefing and resolving the motion in the days ahead.
Earthjustice is a non-profit public interest law firm dedicated to protecting the magnificent places, natural resources, and wildlife of this earth, and to defending the right of all people to a healthy environment. We bring about far-reaching change by enforcing and strengthening environmental laws on behalf of hundreds of organizations, coalitions and communities.
800-584-6460Trump's recent actions have convinced Tehran that the US is not "a trustworthy partner for any kind of deal," according to one Iranian professor.
The ceasefire between the US and Iran is in grave peril after Iran announced on Saturday that, in response to the continued US blockade, it would once again impose travel restrictions on the Strait of Hormuz after briefly reopening it on Friday.
Iran has used the strait—through which about 20% of the world's oil passes—as a chokepoint on Western commerce in response to the illegal US-Israeli war launched in February, and it has been the linchpin of the two-week ceasefire between the two sides, which is scheduled to end Wednesday.
Tehran announced Friday that the strait was "completely open" again in response to a ceasefire between Israel and Lebanon, which had taken effect. That agreement is also already falling apart following a slew of apparent violations by Israel, which has continued shelling southern Lebanon and demolishing homes even as displaced civilians return.
Iranian officials said they opted to reimpose their blockade of the strait because they believe that by continuing its own naval blockade of Iranian ports and vessels, which began over the past weekend, the US is not upholding its end of the deal.
According to a social media post from US Central Command on Saturday, the US military has already turned around at least 23 ships near the strait since its blockade began on April 13.
US President Donald Trump claimed Friday that Iran had agreed to reopen the strait without conditions, but that the US blockade would “remain in full force” until a broader deal was reached surrounding Iran's nuclear program.
But Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister Saeed Khatibzadeh said during a panel Saturday that "That is not the term we agreed on."
Iran's military headquarters later issued a formal statement declaring that it would begin limiting travel through the strait.
“The Islamic Republic of Iran, following previous agreements met in the negotiations conducted in good faith, agreed to manage the passage of a limited number of oil and commercial ships through the Strait of Hormuz," the statement said. "Unfortunately, the Americans, with their repeated breaches of trust that are part of their history, continue their acts of piracy and maritime theft under the pretext of a so-called blockade."
"This strategic waterway is under strict management and control by the armed forces," it continued. "As long as the United States does not end the complete freedom of movement for vessels from Iran to their destinations and back, the situation in the Strait of Hormuz will remain under strict control and will remain as it was before.”
Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) gunboats later opened fire on an oil tanker traveling through the strait on Saturday. No injuries were reported.
As Al Jazeera reporter Ali Hashem described, talks between the US and Iran have been brought "back to square one."
The gap appears increasingly unlikely to be bridged by Wednesday, as Trump continues to demand that Iran allow the US to remove all its enriched uranium, which Iran has said is a nonstarter.
US and Israeli strikes in Iran have already killed more than 1,700 civilians, according to the US-based Human Rights Activist News Agency, and more than 3 million Iranians have been displaced since the war began, according to the United Nations Refugee Agency.
Trump said Friday that perhaps he "won't extend" the ceasefire and that "the blockade is going to remain. If an agreement is not reached by Wednesday, he said, "unfortunately, we'll have to start dropping bombs again."
The president said that Iran "got a little cute" on Saturday by closing the strait again, but said Iran "can't blackmail us."
Shutting the waterway has, however, proven to be one of Iran's most effective points of leverage against the US. It has caused gas prices to soar above $4 and inflation to ripple through the entire Western economy, further tanking Trump's already grim approval ratings as the US midterm elections approach.
Jennifer Parker, an adjunct fellow in naval studies at the University of New South Wales, told Al Jazeera that the US blockade of the strait does not have the ability to cripple Iran in the same way Iran can cripple the US.
“It is not the US blockade on Iranian ports that is impacting the majority of shipping going through that strait. It is the attacks the Iranian navy and IRGC have undertaken on civilian ships,” she said. "To solve the problem in the Strait of Hormuz, there either needs to be an agreement for Iran to stop attacking vessels, or a forcible military intervention that stops them from attacking vessels, and then general reassurance across the strait that it is clear of mines and that if the IRGC start trying to attack merchant ships, they will be defended... We are a long way from all of that.”
Iranian professor Mostafa Khoshcheshm said that Trump's contradictory statements surrounding the ceasefire have convinced Tehran that the United States is not "a trustworthy partner for any kind of deal," and that, as Trump continues to behave erratically, "Iran will continue the war.”
He told Al Jazeera: "Iran believes it has the upper hand and that this must be established in any future confrontation."
"The oil industry's allies in Congress are ignoring public opinion and the undeniable realities of the climate crisis by moving to drill on the sacred Coastal Plain and endanger the freedom of local communities."
Indigenous leaders joined with climate and wildlife defenders on Friday to blast President Donald Trump's administration and Republicans in Congress over the newly announced fossil fuel lease sale for the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge's Coastal Plain in Alaska.
The US Department of the Interior's Bureau of Land Management revealed Friday that it will hold the first of four legally mandated lease sales on June 5. The so-called One Big Beautiful Bill Act—which congressional Republicans passed and Trump signed last summer—requires BLM to hold the other three sales by 2035.
ANWR's Coastal Plain spans over 1.5 million acres and is known for its biodiversity. As a BLM webpage details, it is also believed to contain 4.25-11.8 billion barrels of "technically recoverable oil," according to US Geological Survey estimates.
Trump returned to the White House last year backed by Big Oil's campaign cash, and his deputy interior secretary, Kate MacGregor, said Friday that "after three acts of Congress and several successful lawsuits making it abundantly clear that oil and gas leasing in this area of Alaska is lawful, it is a great honor to once again announce another Coastal Plain lease sale."
MacGregor framed the forthcoming sale as just one piece of the administration's pro-fossil fuel agenda, adding that "President Trump has long supported Alaska's important contribution to American energy dominance, and Interior is proud to take the necessary and durable steps to unleash these important resources on behalf of the American people."
Earlier attempts to open up ANWR to drilling suggest that the sale may not draw much industry interest. Taxpayers for Common Sense pointed out Friday that two previous ones required by the Trump GOP's Tax Cut and Jobs Act "were originally estimated to bring taxpayers almost $1 billion in revenue but fell far short of this projection. The first lease sale, held in January 2021, brought in just $16.5 million. The second lease sale, held in January 2025, attracted no bidders and generated no revenue."
However, as the Anchorage Daily News reported, the plan for the next sale "comes on the heels of another recent lease sale, in the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska to the west of the refuge, that drew heavy interest from oil companies," which "raises questions about how much bidding might occur in the refuge," particularly as Trump's war on Iran has driven up global oil prices.
Still, critics highlighted the previous ANWR sales—including the Wilderness Society's Alaska senior manager, Meda DeWitt, who said: "Once again, the oil industry's allies in Congress are ignoring public opinion and the undeniable realities of the climate crisis by moving to drill on the sacred Coastal Plain and endanger the freedom of local communities to sustain their cultures and lifestyles for generations to come."
"Two previous lease sales have already been economic failures, proving that the absurd Arctic Refuge leasing program should be eliminated and permanent protection must be provided for the calving grounds of the Porcupine Caribou herd," DeWitt argued.
The Arctic Refuge is the crown jewel of the American National Wildlife Refuge System – opening it up to drilling endangers the wildlife and the indigenous communities who have called the refuge their home for thousands of years.
— Senate Energy Dems (@energydems.senate.gov) April 17, 2026 at 1:24 PM
America Fitzpatrick of the League of Conservation Voters (LCV) similarly said that "time and again, the American people have said that they oppose drilling in the Arctic Refuge. The last lease sale in 2024 yielded no bids. Drilling here is not only bad economic—it's reckless and wildly unpopular. Instead of further handcuffing us to be more dependent on fossil fuels, the administration should focus on prioritizing cleaner, more affordable, and more reliable energy sources like clean energy."
"We simply cannot drill our way out of high energy costs," declared Fitzpatrick, the group's conservation program director. "The US is already producing more oil and gas than ever before, but when Trump forced a global energy crisis, prices skyrocketed once again. LCV stands with the Gwich'in people in their fight to ensure there is no drilling in the Arctic Refuge. Not now, not ever."
The Gwich'in, Indigenous people who live in Alaska and Canada, have long defended the refuge from fossil fuel intrusion, and are currently engaged in litigation over the Trump Interior Department's leasing program for the Coastal Plain.
"The Neets'ąįį Gwich'in have made our position clear that any development on the Coastal Plain would have irreversible, adverse effects on our people, our culture, and our way of life," Raeann Garnett, first chief of the Native Village of Venetie Tribal Government, said Friday. "This lease sale, once again, disregards our sovereignty and is a direct threat to the sacred land that sustains our people."
Karlas Norman, first chief of the Venetie Village Council, stressed that "no amount of money will make this land any less sacred to our people or any less vital to our way of life. The Trump administration's most recent actions to advance oil and gas development on the Coastal Plain does not change the fact that this land is sacred, that industry has walked away, and that the Gwich'in people will never stop fighting to protect it."
Galen Gilbert, first chief of the Arctic Village Council, charged that "the Trump administration's relentless push to auction off this sacred land despite overwhelming public opposition and industry that has already signaled they are not interested, makes clear that this administration values corporate interests over the rights and lives of Indigenous peoples."
Gilbert also vowed that "we will continue to fight with every tool available to protect the Coastal Plain for our children and all future generations."
Kristen Moreland, executive director of the Gwich'in Steering Committee, also pledged that "the Gwich’in Nation remains committed to be a voice for the caribou, and to fight oil and gas development in the Arctic Refuge."
"We condemn these efforts by the Trump administration to exploit the calving grounds of the Porcupine Caribou herd for short-term gain, and we know that the majority of Americans stand beside us in opposing development in this cherished and irreplaceable landscape," Moreland continued. "We have been raising our voices and fight[ing] for the protection of this sacred land and our way of life for decades—and we are not backing down now."
Also noting the US public's position, Andy Moderow, senior director of policy at Alaska Wilderness League, put pressure on the industry to stay away from the lease sale later this spring.
"For decades, the American people have recognized that the Arctic Refuge is not an industrial zone for oil development, and this sale simply runs counter to common sense," said Moderow. "Any oil and gas company that is even thinking about buying these leases should know that, if they do, they will be sending a clear message to the American people—that no place in Alaska is too sacred to drill in a quest for corporate profits. We urge companies to take a pass on the Arctic Refuge lease sale, and we look forward to rightfully restoring protections for this landscape in the years to come."
According to the Anchorage Daily News, "Elizabeth Manning, a spokesperson with Earthjustice, said in an email Friday that any new leases will be subject to a lawsuit brought by Natural Resources Defense Council, Center for Biological Diversity, and Friends of the Earth."
“Such corporate impunity would twist the knife of the climate crisis that is already directly harming people across the country," said one campaigner.
Green groups warned Friday that Big Oil-backed Republican legislation would give fossil fuel companies immunity from laws or lawsuits aimed at holding them accountable for their role in causing the climate emergency.
On Thursday, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) introduced a bill co-sponsored by Sens. Ted Budd (R-NC), Tom Cotton (R-Ark.), and Mike Lee (R-Utah) that, if passed, would "prohibit liability against those engaged in the mining, extraction, production, refinement, transportation, distribution, marketing, manufacture, or sale of energy for damages or injunctive or other relief from the use of their products, and for other purposes."
Congresswoman Harriet Hageman (R-Wyo.) on Friday introduced the House version of the legislation, dubbed the Stop Climate Shakedowns Act of 2026, "to protect American energy from leftist legal crusades punishing lawful activity," as her office put it.
🚨After months of fossil fuel industry lobbying, Republican lawmakers have introduced federal legislation that would give oil and gas companies immunity from any laws or lawsuits that aim to hold them accountable for their role in the climate crisis. Time to get loud: 📣 NO IMMUNITY FOR BIG OIL 📣
[image or embed]
— Center for Climate Integrity (@climateintegrity.org) April 17, 2026 at 12:30 PM
If passed, the legislation would ban retroactive climate liability lawsuits, dismiss any such litigation pending upon the law's enactment, void all state energy penalty laws, and affirm that the federal government maintains exclusive authority and jurisdiction over the regulation of greenhouse gas emissions and other interstate environmental standards.
Other Republican-controlled states including Tennesseee and Utah have recently passed such legislation, and others—including Iowa, Louisiana, and Oklahoma—have introduced similar bills.
“This blatant championing of some of the world’s largest polluters shows how far certain elected officials will go to undermine democratic policymaking and deny people and communities access to justice," Kathy Mulvey, climate accountability campaign director at the Union of Concerned Scientists, said Friday.
"No company should be above the law, especially those that planned, funded, and continue to engage in a coordinated decadeslong campaign to protect their profits by deceiving the public and blocking climate action," Mulvey continued.
"Such corporate impunity would twist the knife of the climate crisis that is already directly harming people across the country," she added. "Congress must not capitulate to wealthy special interests. Communities deserve the right to hold polluters accountable for the deadly and costly harms they are causing.”
Former Democratic Washington Gov. Jay Inslee said in a statement that “every elected official who cares about the interests of their constituents more than those of corporate polluters should oppose this disgraceful proposal."
"Juries are a fundamental bastion of democracy, and it’s beyond dangerous to allow powerful and wealthy corporations to shield themselves from ever having to face jurors’ judgment," he added.
The Center for Climate Integrity said the bill "would put Big Oil above the law."
“Big Oil companies have raked in massive profits at the pump while lying to the American people about the catastrophic harm of their products, and now they want to deny Americans their rightful day in court and stick taxpayers with the bill for the mess they made," Center for Climate Integrity president Richard Wiles said Friday. "If fossil fuel companies have done nothing wrong, why do they need immunity?”
While these and other climate advocates denounced the bill, their congressional sponsors—and those lawmakers' fossil fuel industry campaign donors—applauded its introduction.
“Energy security is national security, and we will not self-sabotage our critical industries with a cascade of costly lawsuits and extreme penalties that jeopardize American drilling,” Hageman said in a statement. “America’s energy producers should be protected from the dangerous legal precedent that would be set by the retroactive punishment of lawful activity.”
American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers president and CEO Chet Thompson and American Petroleum Institute president and CEO Mike Sommers said in a joint statement, "We thank Sen. Cruz and Rep. Hageman for introducing legislation to stop a growing patchwork of state laws and lawsuits that threaten American energy and risk raising costs for consumers.”
“These efforts to retroactively penalize companies for lawfully meeting consumer demand are misguided and counterproductive," the lobbyists added. "Congress should act decisively to reaffirm federal authority over national energy policy and end this activist-driven state overreach.”
Eleven states—California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, Rhode Island, and Vermont—along with the District of Columbia and dozens of city, county, and tribal governments have ongoing lawsuits seeking to hold fossil fuel companies accountable for lying to the public about their products’ role in causing and worsening climate change.
On Friday, the right-wing US Supreme Court unanimously issued an important procedural ruling that certain environmental damage lawsuits—in this case, one challenging Chevron's destruction of coastal wetlands in Louisiana—can be moved from state to generally friendlier federal courts. This, after a jury in Plaquemines Parish ordered Chevron and two other companies to pay $744 million in damages for harming coastal wetlands, a verdict that was appealed.
The US Supreme Court's decision came as its justices prepare to hear Suncor Energy Inc. v. County Commissioners of Boulder County, a case in which the plaintiffs—three Suncor entities and ExxonMobil—are seeking to relocate a climate damages lawsuit from Colorado to federal court.
Big Oil-backed efforts to relocate cases to friendlier forums come amid wins for climate defenders, most notably Held v. Montana, a historic 2024 state court ruling in favor of youth-led plaintiffs based on the Montana Constitution's right to "a clean and healthful environment."