

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.

Wyoming, industry double down on failed attempt to rewrite the law for oil and gas companies
Seventeen groups represented by Earthjustice and the Western Environmental Law Center moved to intervene today to defend the Biden administration’s postponement of several oil and gas lease sales. A September ruling in U.S. District Court in Wyoming affirmed the administration’s ability to postpone lease sales, but the state of Wyoming and industry groups are suing in an attempt to rewrite the law to benefit fossil fuel companies.
“This is nothing more than an effort to hand over management of our public lands to the oil and gas industry,” said Michael Freeman, senior attorney with Earthjustice’s Rocky Mountain Office. “The law is clear that the Department of the Interior and Bureau of Land Management have broad discretion to determine when, where, and whether to hold oil and gas lease sales. The administration has followed the law, but the fossil fuel industry is attempting to rewrite the law in its favor.”
In December, Wyoming and two industry trade groups challenged the U.S. Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM) decision not to hold lease sales during parts of 2021 and 2022. Even though the BLM has numerous lease sales scheduled in 2023 – nearly half a million acres are being considered for leasing – the plaintiffs claim the agency has an “unwritten policy” pausing leasing and want the court to order the Department of the Interior (DOI) and the BLM to hold lease sales every three months across the West. The Supreme Court and 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals have ruled that the Interior Department and the BLM have broad discretion to determine the timing and scope of lease sales, including not holding them at all.
“Forcing Interior to lease without fully weighing public impacts is industry’s attempt to continue looting public resources by accumulating excess leases at bargain basement prices,” said Bob LeResche, Powder River Basin Resource Council board member and chair of Western Organization of Resource Councils. “Industry already has more than 26 million acres of public mineral estate tied up in oil and gas leases, and drillers have stockpiled more than 9,000 federal drilling permits. The industry could continue drilling and producing as normal for decades even with no new leases.”
In September U.S. District Judge Scott Skavdahl rejected similar claims by the fossil fuel industry and Wyoming. The judge held that the BLM had acted within its legal authority when it postponed lease sales to ensure that it fully considered potential environmental harms.
“This is an attempt to strip away the crucial role and authority of the Department of the Interior to determine how to manage public lands to best serve the public interest,” said Julia Stuble, Wyoming senior manager at The Wilderness Society. “Handing over this power to the oil and gas industry would threaten not only public lands, but also the communities that depend on them for clean air and clean water, along with efforts to transition to a just, clean energy future.”
“Last year, the court affirmed the Bureau of Land Management’s authority to postpone oil and gas lease sales in order to make certain they adhere to the law,” said Melissa Hornbein, senior attorney at the Western Environmental Law Center. “The court should shut down Wyoming and the oil and gas industry’s transparent attempt to circumvent this basic principle.”
“Today’s filing demonstrates that we refuse to sit back and allow Big Oil to push for policies that perpetuate dirty energy,” said Hallie Templeton, legal director for Friends of the Earth. “The law is crystal clear: the federal government holds broad authority over whether, when, and how to lease public lands for oil and gas development. The energy sector should be looking to the future of justly sourced renewable energy, not pushing outdated technology that exploits people and the planet.”
“This lawsuit is just another ploy by the fossil fuel industry and its political stooges to wrest control of the public’s land for more climate-destroying profits,” said Taylor McKinnon of the Center for Biological Diversity. “The federal government retains broad power to manage public land for the public good, and that includes not leasing land for more fracking industrialization.”
“It is clearly within the Department of Interior’s authority to decide when and where to lease for fossil fuel development, including any pause to review the rules. It’s long overdue for the federal oil and gas program to be updated to ensure protections for public health, environment, wildlife and communities,” said Barbara Vasquez, board member of the Western Organization of Resource Councils from Cowdry, Colorado. “In my community, we are experiencing firsthand what is at stake when BLM leases public lands for oil and gas. When leases are developed, rural landscapes and communities are industrialized with the inevitable spills and emissions hazardous to public health and environment. But you don’t have to live next door. Climate change is driving our accelerating transition to renewables and calling for the managed decline of fossil fuel development on public lands. The BLM must be a leader on this change.”
“For too long BLM has blindly leased public lands to oil and gas companies without actually understanding the impacts of development,” said Peter Hart, attorney with Wilderness Workshop. “Now the agency is working to reevaluate its oil and gas management and to assess impacts, like those that new development will have on the climate. It just makes sense to pause new leasing until the program is brought into this century, and it is well within the agency’s authority.”
“Our public lands must be part of the climate solution, instead of making the problem worse,” said Connie Wilbert, director of Sierra Club Wyoming. “Stabilizing our climate for future generations means protecting public land from oil and gas development, and despite what Wyoming and the oil and gas industry claim, the Department of Interior clearly has the right to postpone lease sales.”
“The Department of the Interior needs the latitude to manage our public lands, to permanently protect treasures such as Grand Teton National Park and its surrounding landscape,” said Matt Kirby, senior director of landscape conservation for the National Parks Conservation Association. “We reject this attempt to force fossil fuel development on America’s public lands, in spite of what is in the public interest and may threaten national parks.”
Earthjustice and the Western Environmental Law Center represent a coalition of conservation and citizen groups in the Wyoming litigation. Earthjustice represents Friends of the Earth, National Parks Conservation Association, Sierra Club, Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, The Wilderness Society, Valley Organic Growers Association, Western Colorado Alliance, Western Watersheds Project, and Wilderness Workshop. The Western Environmental Law Center represents the Center for Biological Diversity, Citizens for a Healthy Community, Diné Citizens Against Ruining Our Environment, Food & Water Watch, Montana Environmental Information Center, Powder River Basin Resource Council, Western Organization of Resource Councils, and WildEarth Guardians.
Filings available here:
https://westernlaw.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/Conservation-Groups-MTI-23-cv-001.pdf
https://westernlaw.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/Conservation-Groups-MTI-22-cv-252.pdf
https://westernlaw.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/Conservation-Groups-MTI-22-cv-247.pdf
https://westernlaw.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/Ex.-1-Supporting-Decls.-22-cv-247.pdf
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) 783-7400"If Trump is using this justification to use military force on any individuals he chooses... what’s stopping him from designating anyone within our own borders in a similar fashion and conducting lethal, militarized attacks against them?"
A Democratic senator is raising concerns about President Donald Trump potentially relying on the same rationale he's used to justify military strikes on purported drug trafficking vessels to kill American citizens on US soil.
In an interview with the Intercept, Sen. Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.) argued that Trump's boat strikes in the Caribbean and the Pacific Ocean have been flatly illegal under both domestic and international law.
Diving into specifics, Duckworth explained that the administration has been justifying its boat-bombing spree by arbitrarily declaring suspected drug traffickers as being part of "designated terrorist organizations," which the senator noted was "not grounded in US statute nor international law, but in solely what Trump says."
Many other legal experts have called the administration's strikes illegal, with some going so far as to call them acts of murder.
Duckworth, a military veteran, also said it was not a stretch to imagine Trump placing terrorist designations on US citizens as well, which would open up the opportunity to carry out lethal strikes against them.
"If Trump is using this justification to use military force on any individuals he chooses—without verified evidence or legal authorization—what’s stopping him from designating anyone within our own borders in a similar fashion and conducting lethal, militarized attacks against them?" Duckworth asked. "This illegal and dangerous misuse of lethal force should worry all Americans, and it can’t be accepted as normal."
Independent journalist Ken Klippenstein reported last week that Attorney General Pam Bondi recently wrote a memo that directed the Department of Justice (DOJ) to compile a list of potential “domestic terrorism” organizations that espouse “extreme viewpoints on immigration, radical gender ideology, and anti-American sentiment.”
The memo expanded upon National Security Presidential Memorandum-7 (NSPM-7), a directive signed by Trump in late September that demanded a “national strategy to investigate and disrupt networks, entities, and organizations that foment political violence so that law enforcement can intervene in criminal conspiracies before they result in violent political acts."
The Intercept revealed that it reached out to the White House, the DOJ, and the US Department of Defense and asked whether the tactics used on purported Caribbean drug traffickers could be deployed on the US citizens that wind up on Bondi's list of extremists. All three entities, reported the Intercept, "have, for more than a month, failed to answer this question."
The DOJ, for instance, responded the Intercept's question about using lethal force against US citizens by saying that "political violence has no place in this country, and this Department of Justice will investigate, identify, and root out any individual or violent extremist group attempting to commit or promote this heinous activity."
Rebecca Ingber, a former State Department lawyer and current professor at Cardozo Law School, told the Intercept that the administration's designation of alleged cartel members as terrorists shows that there appears to be little limit to its conception of the president's power to deploy deadly force at will.
“This is one of the many reasons it is so important that Congress push back on the president’s claim that he can simply label transporting drugs an armed attack on the United States and then claim the authority to summarily execute people on that basis," Ingber explained.
The Intercept noted that the US government "has been killing people—including American citizens, on occasion—around the world with drone strikes" for the past two-and-a-half decades, although the strikes on purported drug boats represent a significant expansion of the use of deadly force.
Nicholas Slayton, contributing editor at Task and Purpose, pointed the finger at former President Barack Obama for pushing the boundaries of drone warfare during his eight years in office.
"Really sucks that Obama administration set a legal precedent for assassinating Americans," he commented on Bluesky.
"The American public is demanding decisive action to end US complicity in the Israeli government’s war crimes by stopping the flow of weapons to Israel."
Jewish Voice for Peace Action on Friday led a coalition of groups demanding that the Democratic Party stop providing arms to the Israeli government.
Speaking outside the Democratic National Committee’s Winter Meeting in Los Angeles, Jewish Voice for Peace Action (JVP Action) held a press conference calling on Democrats to oppose all future weapons shipments to Israel, whose years-long assault on Gaza has, according to one estimate, killed more than 100,000 Palestinian people.
While carrying banners that read, "Stop Arming Israel," speakers at the press conference also called on Democrats to reject money from the American Israeli Political Action Committee (AIPAC), which has consistently funded primary challenges against left-wing critics of Israel.
JVP Action was joined at the press conference by representatives from Health Care 4 US (HC4US), Progressive Democrats of America, the Council on American-Islamic Relations Action (CAIR Action), and the United Teachers of Los Angeles (UTLA) Board of Directors.
Estee Chandler, founder of the Los Angeles chapter of Jewish Voice for Peace, warned Democrats at the press conference that they risked falling out of touch with public opinion if they continued to support giving weapons to Israel.
"The polls are clear,” Chandler said. "The American public is demanding decisive action to end US complicity in the Israeli government’s war crimes by stopping the flow of weapons to Israel, and the Democratic Party refusing to heed that call will continue to come at their own peril."
The press conference came a day after the progressive advocacy group RootsAction and journalist Christopher D. Cook released an "autopsy" report of the Democratic Party's crushing 2024 losses, finding that the party's support for Israel's assault on Gaza contributed to last year's election results.
Chandler also called on Democrats to get behind the Block the Bombs Act, which currently has 58 sponsors, and which she said "would block the transfer of the worst offensive weapons from being sent to Israel, including bombs, tank rounds, and artillery shells that are US-supplied and have been involved in the mass killing of Palestinian civilians and the grossest violations of international law in Gaza."
Although there has technically been a ceasefire in place in Gaza since October, Israeli forces have continued to conduct deadly military operations in the enclave that have killed hundreds of civilians, including dozens of children.
Ricardo Pires, a spokesperson for the United Nations Children’s Fund, said last month that the number of deaths in Gaza in recent weeks has been "staggering" given that they've happened "during an agreed ceasefire."
"She can't even be effective as a shill," said one critic of the ex-senator's lobbying.
Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez was among those celebrating after the Chandler, Arizona City Council on Thursday night unanimously rejected an artificial intelligence data center project promoted by former US Sen. Kyrsten Sinema.
"Good!" Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) simply said on social media Friday.
The defeat of the proposed $2.5 billion project comes as hundreds of advocacy groups and progressive leaders, including US Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), are urging opponents of energy-sucking AI data centers across the United States to keep pressuring local, state, and federal leaders over climate, economic, environmental, and water concerns.
In Chandler, "the nearly 43,000-square-foot data center on the corner of Price and Dobson roads would have been the 11th data center in the Price Road Corridor, an area known for employers like Intel and Wells Fargo," the Arizona Republic reported.
The newspaper noted that around 300 people attended Thursday's meeting—many holding signs protesting the project—and city spokesperson Matthew Burdick said that the government received 256 comments opposing the data center.
Although Sinema skipped the debate on Thursday, the ex-senator—who frequently thwarted Democratic priorities on Capitol Hill and ultimately ditched the party before leaving office—previously attended a planning and zoning commission meeting in Chandler to push for the project. That stunt earned her the title of "cartoon villain."
Sinema critics again took aim at her after the 7-0 vote, saying that "she can't even be effective as a shill" and "Sinema went all in to lobby for a data center in Chandler, Arizona and the council told her to get rekt."
Progressive commentator Krystal Ball declared: "Kyrsten Sinema data center L. Love to see it."
Politico noted Friday that "several other Arizona cities, including Phoenix and Tucson, have written zoning rules for data centers or placed new requirements on the facilities. Local officials in cities in Oregon, Missouri, Virginia, Arizona, and Indiana have also rejected planned data centers."
Janos Marton, chief advocacy officer at Dream.Org, said: "Another big win in Arizona, following Tucson's rejection of a data center. When communities are organized they can fight back and win. Don't accept data centers that hide their impacts behind NDAs, drive up energy prices, and bring pollution to local neighborhoods."
When Sinema lobbied for the Chandler data center in October, she cited President Donald Trump's push for such projects.
"The AI Action Plan, set out by the Trump administration, says very clearly that we must continue to proliferate AI and AI data centers throughout the country," she said at the time. "So federal preemption is coming. Chandler right now has the opportunity to determine how and when these new, innovative AI data centers will be built."
Trump on Thursday signed an executive order (EO) intended to block states from enforcing their own AI regulations.
"I understand the president has issued an EO. I think that is yet to play itself out," Chandler Mayor Kevin Hartke reportedly said after the city vote. "Really, this is a land use question, not [about] policies related to data centers."