August, 23 2019, 12:00am EDT
Nebraska Supreme Court Upholds Law that Ignores Landowners' Property Rights, Indigenous Sovereignty in Flawed Decision on Keystone XL Pipeline Route
Despite the flawed state decision, three federal lawsuit challenges to pipeline project continue to proceed
WASHINGTON
Nebraska landowners and Tribal Nations said they would continue to fight the Trump administration's rubber-stamp approval of a federal permit for the proposed Keystone XL pipeline, after the Nebraska Supreme Court ignored due process rights, property rights, and indigenous sovereignty in a flawed decision on the "Mainline Alternative" route through Nebraska. This new route has undergone no legitimate environmental, property rights or cultural reviews and was approved without any proper notice to landowners and Ponca members along the new route.
WHAT: Telepresser for Media on Nebraska Supreme Court KXL Decision
WHEN: Friday, August 23, 10:30 a.m. E.T. / 9:30 a.m. C.T.
CALL-IN DETAILS: DIAL-IN FOR MEDIA: 877-876-9173; PASSWORD: KXL
Landowners' attorneys with Domina Law Group argued that the proposed pipeline route's approval by the Nebraska Public Service Commission in November 2017 was illegal on a number of grounds -- including the violation of due process rights for landowners on the route who were never afforded a chance to participate in public hearings or comment as affected landowners. Likewise, attorneys for the Ponca Tribe of Nebraska and Yankton Sioux Tribe argued before the Court that the route's approval was illegal without notice to landowners and Ponca members on the route and without any survey of sacred and cultural sites on the proposed route, including the Ponca Trail of Tears.
The risky pipeline project's fate is still very much in doubt, as three separate federal lawsuits continue to proceed that challenge the controversial project's permits.
President Trump essentially has tried to start the process over, by ending the Executive Order which has governed cross-border pipelines. In its place, Trump issued an "Executive Memorandum" saying TransCanada's "permit" was approved, without any need for standard reviews that govern critical water crossings and other environmental permits. This action in turn prompted three new federal lawsuits, outlined below:
- Bold, Sierra Club, NRDC, Center for Biological Diversity, Northern Plains Resource Council suit: Filed July 1, 2019. This case is in its early briefing stages. Challenges the Army Corps' illegal approval without evaluating Keystone XL's impacts as required by the National Environmental Policy Act and the Clean Water Act. The lawsuit also makes Endangered Species Act claims against Trump, the Army Corps, TransCanada, and local power-line builders -- over the project's lethal threats to endangered species, including the whooping crane. (https://boldnebraska.org/conservation-groups-launch-new-legal-challenges-to-keystone-xl-pipeline-approval/)
- Indigenous Environmental Network, North Coast Rivers Alliance suit: Filed April 5, 2019. This case challenges Trump's unilateral permit for Keystone XL, and seeks a new preliminary injunction on construction; oral arguments are scheduled for Oct. 9 in Montana federal court re: the challenge to Trump's "permit," and a U.S. government motion to dismiss case. (https://www.ienearth.org/9th-court-of-appeals-throws-out-case-blocking-keystone-xl-pipeline/)
- Native American Rights Fund, Rosebud Sioux Tribe, Fort Belknap, Gros Ventre suit: Filed June 7, 2019. Rosebud Sioux Tribe v Trump seeks to rescind Trump's unilateral "permit." In conjunction, the Rosebud Sioux Tribe held its own Utility Commission public hearings on KXL, and rejected the project, refusing permission for TransCanada to use their roads to move equipment to the proposed pipeline route. (https://www.narf.org/cases/keystone/)
Meanwhile, TransCanada has not yet announced a Final Investment Decision on whether to even move forward and build Keystone XL, should it finally resolve these numerous outstanding permitting and legal challenges.
"The Nebraska legislature and a Democratic President can fix this very bad ruling coming out of the Nebraska Supreme Court. At some point in our country's history, property rights of farmers and sovereign rights of Tribal Nations should trump Big Oil's land grab," said Jane Kleeb, Bold Nebraska founder. "The Nebraska legislature can fix our broken state laws that give too much power to Big Oil. There is nothing American about the KXL pipeline--it is a project with foreign steel and foreign tarsands all headed to the export market. Our water is on the line here, and for the past decade too many politicians sat on their hands while the people did the work. It's time for our elected officials to now step up and make it clear that pipelines are not in our public interest."
"The Ponca Tribe is extremely disappointed with the Supreme Court's decision. Not only did the Court ignore the due process rights of landowners along the route that never got notice or an opportunity to be heard about a pipeline going through their land, but it disregarded the potential destruction of the Tribe's cultural resources by TransCanada, including the Ponca Trail of Tears," said Larry Wright, Jr., Chairman of the Ponca Tribe of Nebraska. "The reality is neither TransCanada nor the PSC has any idea what cultural and historic resources are along the route because surveys have never been done. We've seen what pipeline companies do to cultural and historic resources in South Dakota with DAPL -- they intentionally plow through them and destroy them. Even the federal court in Montana recognized that the pipeline cannot be built until cultural and historic surveys are done, but the Supreme Court of Nebraska doesn't seem to care about those resources in its own state. Regardless, the Ponca Tribe will continue to fight this pipeline that threatens all of our land, water, and resources in Nebraska."
Bold Alliance is a non-profit organization fighting fossil fuel projects, protecting landowners against eminent domain abuse, and working for clean energy solutions while building an engaged base of citizens who care about the land, water and climate change.
LATEST NEWS
House Dems Form Procedural 'Conga Line' to Block Medicaid and SNAP Cuts
"We're here to help people, not screw people over!" said Rep. Jim McGovern.
Jul 02, 2025
Democrats in the House of Representatives on Wednesday banded together in an attempt to gum up the works to block House Republicans from passing their massive budget bill that includes historic and devastating cuts to both Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program known as SNAP.
One by one, House Democrats moved in what Punchbowl News reporter Jake Sherman described as a "conga line" to make the exact same request for unanimous consent "to amend the rule to make an order the amendment at the desk that protects against any cuts to Medicaid and SNAP." Each time a Democrat would make the request, Rep. Steve Womack (R-Ark.), holding the gavel in the chamber, informed them that "the unanimous consent request cannot be entertained."
At one point, Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.) grew frustrated with his Republican colleagues for their insistence on passing the budget bill, which he noted would significantly cut taxes for the richest Americans while decimating safety net programs designed to help poor and working class Americans.
"We're here to help people, not screw people over!" McGovern fumed.
As of this writing, Speaker of the House Mike Johnson (R.La.) remained in his office, according to Punchbowlreporting, an apparent signal that a floor vote for Wednesday remained up in the air.
The United States Senate on Tuesday passed a budget package by the slimmest of margins that the Congressional Budget Office has estimated would slash spending on Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program by more than $1 trillion over a ten-year-period and would slash SNAP spending by more than $250 billion over the same period.
Previous polling has shown that the budget package is broadly unpopular and a new poll from Data for Progress released Wednesday found that the Republican plan grows more unpopular the more voters learn about its provisions. In particular, voters expressed significant concern about the plan's impact on the national debt, cuts to CHIP and Medicaid, and attacks on clean energy programs.
Over 100 @HouseDemocrats lined up to ask for "unanimous consent to amend the rule and make in order the amendment at the desk that protects against any cuts to Medicaid & SNAP" pic.twitter.com/r5ktS9Uj0K
— Jahana Hayes (@RepJahanaHayes) July 2, 2025
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Cruel Betrayal': Educators Furious Over Trump Funding Freeze for School Programs
One Democratic senator called the move a "clear as day violation of federal law."
Jul 02, 2025
The Trump administration informed state education agencies on Monday that it would not release over $6 billion in previously approved federal funding for schools—sparking outcry from teachers unions, Democratic lawmakers, and education-focused groups who called the move harmful to students.
In an unsigned email, Education Department staff told states that they would not be dispersing any money from five programs that focus on issues including migrant education, before- and after-school programs, English learner services, and more.
"Given the change in administrations, the department is reviewing the FY 2025 funding for the [Title I-C, II-A, III-A, IV-A, IV-B] grant program(s), and decisions have not yet been made concerning submissions and awards for this upcoming year," according to the email, which was obtained by NPR.
Jodi Grant, executive director of the Afterschool Alliance, a group that promotes access to after-school programs for kids, called the funding loss "catastrophic," according to The New York Times.
Grant's organization is sounding the alarm that loss of funding for 21st Century Community Learning Centers, one of the programs targeted, could mean that 10,000 after-school and summer programs could close their doors for the 2025-26 school year. Over a million children are at risk of losing their programs as soon as this summer, according to the Afterschool Alliance.
The email came one day before the federal government was scheduled to disperse the money, on July 1. The funding had been previously approved by Congress in a continuing budget resolution that passed in March.
On Wednesday, Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) called the move a "clear as day violation of federal law. The appropriations law passed by Congress requires this money to be spent."
Randi Weingarten, president of the American Federation of Teachers, a teachers union, also called it unlawful. "This is another illegal usurpation of the authority of the Congress. Plus it directly harms the children in our nation," she said in a statement on Tuesday.
According to Education Week, a 2026 federal budget proposal from the White House unveiled last month seeks to eliminate all five of the education programs targeted in this week's funding freeze, meaning this move from the Trump administration is essentially the White House advancing its priorities early, without Congress' consideration.
"Withholding billions in promised federal education funding that students need—and states had planned to use to support children in their states—is a cruel betrayal of students, especially those who rely on critical support services," said Becky Pringle, president of the National Education Association, the nation's largest teachers union, in a statement on Tuesday.
"Sadly, this is part of a broader pattern by this administration of undermining public education—starving it of resources, sowing distrust, and pushing privatization at the expense of the nation's most vulnerable students," she added.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Lawsuit Aims to End 'Systematic' Snatching of Brown-Skinned People by Trump Agents
"These guys are popping up, rampant all over the city, just taking people randomly, and we want that particular practice to end," one attorney in the case said of Department of Homeland Security agents.
Jul 02, 2025
Immigrant rights defenders in California on Wednesday sued the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, accusing the Trump administration of "abducting and disappearing community members using unlawful stop and arrest practices and confining individuals at a federal building in illegal conditions while denying them access to attorneys" as part of its mass deportation effort.
The lawsuit was brought by five individual workers, three advocacy groups, and a legal services provider: The Los Angeles Worker Center Network, United Farm Workers (UFW), the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights (CHIRLA), and Immigrant Defenders Law Center. Their complaint accuses DHS of unconstitutionally arresting and detaining people, according to the ACLU, which is assisting with the legal challenge, "in order to meet arbitrary arrest quotas set by the Trump administration."
According to the complaint:
The raids in this district follow a common, systematic pattern. Individuals with brown skin are approached or pulled aside by unidentified federal agents, suddenly and with a show of force, and made to answer questions about who they are and where they are from. If they hesitate, attempt to leave, or do not answer the questions to the satisfaction of the agents, they are detained, sometimes tackled, handcuffed, and/or taken into custody. In these interactions, agents typically have no prior information about the individual and no warrant of any kind. If agents make an arrest, contrary to federal law, they do not make any determination of whether a person poses a risk of flight before a warrant can be obtained. Also contrary to federal law, the agents do not identify themselves or explain why the individual is being arrested.
"DHS—at explicit direction from the Trump administration—has gone after day laborers, car wash workers, farm workers, street vendors, service workers, nannies, and others who form the lifeblood of communities across Southern California," said ACLU Foundation of Southern California senior staff attorney Mohammad Tajsar, who is representing plaintiffs in the case.ho "Everyone deserves to feel safe going about their daily lives. DHS must stop disappearing people from our communities."
Tajsar told the Los Angeles Times that "these guys are popping up, rampant all over the city, just taking people randomly, and we want that particular practice to end."
Alvaro M. Huerta, director of litigation and advocacy at Immigrant Defenders Law Center and a plaintiff's attorney in the suit, said in a statement that "the federal government is waging a campaign of terror across Southern California, abducting community members off the streets and warehousing them in deplorable conditions away from their loved ones, all while denying them access to legal counsel."
"It's blatantly unconstitutional, cruelly inhumane, and a violation of any common decency," Huerta added. "If the Trump administration insists on trampling Angelenos' rights, we'll see them in court."
Plaintiffs in the case—who are seeking to represent people subjected to random stops and arrests—are asking the court to certify the case as a class action. They have also requested preliminary and permanent injunctions barring further violations of constitutional protections against unreasonable searches and seizures and self-incrimination, as enshrined in the Fourth and Fifth Amendments, respectively.
As the lawsuit notes, "one of the clearest patterns that have emerged in the raids in Southern California... has been stops and interrogations... on the basis of apparent race and ethnicity."
"These raids have targeted the most vulnerable members of our workforce, essential workers who are the backbone of our local economy," said Los Angeles Worker Center Network executive director Armando Gudino. "We cannot allow racial profiling, warrantless arrests, and denial of due process to become the standard operating procedure in our communities."
DHS has been holding arrested people in the basement of a federal building in downtown Los Angeles commonly referred to as B-18. The lockup has no beds, showers, or medical facilities, according to the ACLU of Southern California. Furthermore, B-18 is meant to hold only a small number of people on a temporary basis while they are processed.
"We have heard from over 100 families of Individuals taken to B-18 and other detention centers that attest to their loved ones being kept in overcrowded, cold, and inhumane conditions," said CHIRLA executive director Angelica Salas. "They are held in small windowless rooms with dozens or more other detainees, in extremely cramped quarters while being verbally humiliated and pressured into signing papers they don't understand."
The ACLU of Southern California said: "The ongoing raids have led to the disappearance of more than 1,500 people. The suit details how federal agents consistently refuse to identify themselves or what agency they are with when asked, using anonymity as a tactic to shield lawlessness."
UFW president Teresa Romero noted in a statement that "the raids in the greater Los Angeles area have not been limited to the urban center; we have also seen horrific instances of Border Patrol agents chasing down farm workers in the fields of Ventura County. The spouse of a UFW member was among those unjustly detained."
"Now the very workers who feed America go to work in fear," she added. "Their American-born children are scared not knowing if their parents will come home. Farm workers deserve better. We've seen these unconstitutional and un-American tactics before, with Border Patrol targeting random farm workers and anyone with brown skin in Kern County during their large sweep in January. We sued then and we are suing now."
While U.S. President Donald Trump, members of his administration, and Republican lawmakers and supporters claim the DHS crackdown is targeting dangerous criminals, critics have noted that people legally seeking asylum, families, relatives of American citizens, and even citizens themselves have been swept up in the mass deportation dragnet.
According to the libertarian Cato Institute, 65% of people taken by ICE had no criminal conviction whatsoever and 93% had no conviction for violent offenses.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular