Trump administration defends Keystone XL pipeline in court
Legal Exams
Trump administration attorneys defended the disputed Keystone XL oil sands pipeline in federal court on Thursday against environmentalists and Native American groups that want to derail the project.
President Barack Obama rejected the 1,179-mile (1,800-kilometer) line proposed by TransCanada Corporation in 2015 because of its potential to exacerbate climate change.
President Donald Trump revived the project soon after taking office last year, citing its potential to create jobs and advance energy independence.
Environmentalists and Native American groups sued to stop the line and asked U.S. District Judge Brian Morris to halt the project. They and others, including landowners, are worried about spills that could foul groundwater and the pipeline's impacts to their property rights.
Morris did not immediately rule following a four-hour Thursday hearing in federal court in Great Falls.
U.S. government attorneys asserted that Trump's change in course from Obama's focus on climate change reflected a legitimate shift in policy, not an arbitrary rejection of previous studies of the project.
"While the importance of climate change was considered, the interests of energy security and economic development outweighed those concerns," the attorneys recently wrote.
Morris previously rejected a bid by the administration to dismiss the lawsuit on the grounds that Trump had constitutional authority over the pipeline as a matter of national security.
Keystone XL would cost an estimated $8 billion. It would begin in Alberta and transport up to 830,000 barrels a day of crude through Montana and South Dakota to Nebraska, where it would connect with lines to carry oil to Gulf Coast refineries.
Federal approval is required because the route crosses an international border.
TransCanada, based in Calgary, said in court submissions that the pipeline would operate safely and help reduce U.S. reliance on crude from the Middle East and other regions.
The project is facing a separate legal challenge in Nebraska, where landowners have filed a lawsuit challenging the Nebraska Public Service Commission's decision to approve a route through the state.
Related listings
-
Suspect in U Penn student's murder due in California court
Legal Exams 02/02/2018A Southern California man charged in the killing of a University of Pennsylvania student is due in court Friday.Authorities say Samuel Woodward, 20, of Newport Beach killed 19-year-old sophomore Blaze Bernstein and buried his body in a shallow grave ...
-
Supreme Court delays order for North Carolina to redraw maps
Legal Exams 01/15/2018The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday delayed a lower-court order that would have forced North Carolina Republican lawmakers to redraw the state's congressional districts by next week because of excessive partisan bias in current lines.The justices anno...
-
Supreme Court Overturns Billings Police Back-Pay Ruling
Legal Exams 08/26/2017The Montana Supreme Court has overturned a judge's ruling that the City of Billings owes 27 current and former police officers $2.7 million in back pay, costs and penalties in a dispute over how longevity pay should be calculated. District Judge Nels...
Chicago Business Fraud Attorney
Business Fraud can take many forms. In the broadest terms, a fraud occurs when someone intentionally deceives others for personal gain. Many times business fraud is harmful and recovery is necessary. Losing your personal or business’s assets can devastate your entire life. Contact Roth Law Groupto receive help on restoring your business to normalcy before you were victimized with fraud. Business fraud cases can involve multiple people and complicated schemes aimed at deceiving the public, auditors, investigators, or others. Whether you are dealing with corporate fraud or commercial fraud, we can step in and fight back to receive compensation that you deserve.
At Roth Law Group we are devoted to prosecuting and defending the legal rights of individuals and small businesses, as either plaintiff or defendant. Proving fraud can be extremely difficult. To have a successful business fraud case, one must prove that the defendant purposefully set out to defraud the victim. Fraud cases are being investigated more aggressively than ever. With increasing federal regulation and scrutiny of corporate practises, many individuals and businesses find themselves the subject of business fraud investigations.