Dakota Access LLC v. Standing Rock Sioux Tribe Cert Petition [Updated with additional cert stage briefs]

Here:

Cert Petition

Questions presented:

  1. Whether, under NEPA, an agency that carefully considers all criticisms of its environmental analysis must also “resolve” those criticisms to the court’s satisfaction to justify a finding of no significant impact; and
  2. Whether procedural error under NEPA per se warrants remand with vacatur.

Lower court materials here.

Update:

Federal BIO

Tribal BIO

Reply

Update in Standing Rock/Dakota Access Pipeline

Here are the new materials in Standing Rock Sioux Tribe v. United States Army Corps of Engineers (D.D.C.):

569 Tribe Motion

573 Army Corps Opposition

586 Tribe Reply

607 DCT Order

Prior post here.

D.C. Circuit Affirms Order that DAPL Easement is Illegal, but Does Not Require Shutdown of Pipeline

Here is the opinion in Standing Rock Sioux Tribe v. United States Army Corps of Engineers.

An excerpt:

Lake Oahe, created when the United States Army Corps of Engineers flooded thousands of acres of Sioux lands in the Dakotas by constructing the Oahe Dam on the Missouri River, provides several successor tribes of the Great Sioux Nation with water for drinking, industry, and sacred cultural practices. Passing beneath Lake Oahe’s waters, the Dakota Access Pipeline transports crude oil from North Dakota to Illinois. Under the Mineral Leasing Act, 30 U.S.C. § 185, the pipeline could not traverse the federally owned land at the Oahe crossing site without an easement from the Corps. The question presented here is whether the Corps
violated the National Environmental Policy Act, 42 U.S.C. § 4321, by issuing that easement without preparing an environmental impact statement despite substantial criticisms from the Tribes and, if so, what should be done about that failure. We agree with the district court that the Corps acted unlawfully, and we affirm the court’s order vacating the easement while the Corps prepares an environmental impact statement. But we reverse the court’s order to the extent it directed that the pipeline be shut down and emptied of oil.

Briefs here.

D.C. Circuit Materials in Standing Rock v. Army Corps

Here are the briefs in Standing Rock Sioux Tribe v. United States Army Corps of Engineers:

Dakota Access Brief

Dakota Access Reply

Federal Brief

Federal Reply Brief

Members of Congress Amicus Brief

NIWRC Amicus Brief

North Dakota Brief

Standing Rock Brief

States Against DAPL Amicus Brief

States Supporting DAPL Amicus Brief

Tribal Orgs Amicus Brief

Oral argument audio here.

Lower court materials here.

Federal Court Dismisses Most Claims by Water Protectors against State and County over NoDAPL Protests

Here are the materials in Thunderhawk v. County of Morton (D.N.D.):

38 TigerSwan Answer + Counterclaim

44 Amended Complaint

45-1 Motion to Dismiss TigerSwan Counterclaim

49 County Motion to Dismiss

52 State Motion to Dismiss

56 TigerSwam Answer + 2d Counterclaim

57 TigerSwan Opposition to 45

58 Reply in Support of 45

61 Response to County MTD

62 Response to State MTD

67-1 Motion to Dismiss TigerSwan 2d Counterclaim

71 County Reply in Support of 49

73 TigerSwan Opposition to 67

76 State Reply in Support of 52

82 TigerSwan MSJ

84 Response to TigerSwan MSJ

85 TigerSwan Reply in Support of 82

87 DCT Order Dismissing TigerSwan Counterclaim

88 DCT Order

Federal Court Invalidates Dakota Access Pipeline Permits

Here is the order in Standing Rock Sioux Tribe v. United States Army Corps of Engineers (D.D.C.):

546 DCT Order

Related briefs:

507 US Brief

510 Dakota Access Brief

527 Tribal Plaintiffs Brief

531 Congressional Amicus Brief

532 Environmental Amicus Brief

533 Tribal Amicus Brief

536 US Reply

539 Dakota Access Reply

Prior post here.