Federal appeals court faces backlash after siding with controversial pipeline project: 'Inconsistent with state law'
Prompting sharp criticism, a federal court of appeals has sided with a pipeline company over local officials and residents, striking down ordinances aimed at regulating pipelines within their communities, the Gazette reported.
Summit Carbon Solutions is seeking to build a pipeline that would transport sequestered carbon dioxide across five states, including Iowa. In response to Summit's plan, two Iowa counties, Shelby and Story, passed laws that put restrictions on pipeline construction within their borders, according to the appeals court decision.
Summit Carbon Solutions then sued the two counties, arguing that both federal and state law preempted local governments' ability to regulate pipeline construction in their own backyards.
Under the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution, a federal law preempts any state law that is in conflict with it. Similarly, under Iowa state law, a law passed by the Iowa general assembly takes precedence over any local law.
In 2023, a federal district court sided with Summit, ruling that the federal Pipeline Safety Act and Iowa state law both superseded the county ordinances, effectively striking them down. Shelby and Story counties then appealed the decision, taking the case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.
On June 5, a three-judge panel for the Eighth Circuit released its opinion upholding the lower court ruling.
"The PSA preempts the Shelby and Story ordinances' setback, emergency response, and abandonment provisions," the court found, referring to the federal Pipeline Safety Act.
According to the Gazette, the court also found that the ordinances "would prohibit a pipeline company from building in a certain location, even if the (Iowa Utilities Commission) permits construction there. That possibility makes the pipeline company permitting requirements inconsistent with state law and thus preempted."
Unless the Iowa counties appeal the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court, their pipeline regulations will remain struck down.
This case was significant because it tested the ability of local residents and their representatives in municipal government to challenge the presence of massive, dangerous pipelines passing through their communities.
Do you think fracking should be illegal in America?
Yes — everywhere
Yes — in most areas
In some areas
No
Click your choice to see results and speak your mind.
Summit Carbon Solutions' plan involved building a 2,500-mile pipeline that would transport carbon captured from ethanol plants across five different states all the way to North Dakota, where it would be pumped underground, according to the Gazette.
Over the course of those 2,500 miles, about the distance from San Francisco to New York City, the pipeline would pass through countless local communities. These communities are the ones who bear the brunt of such pipeline projects: the risks to human health, the property damage, the environmental degradation, and the ever-present-danger of a pipeline disaster.
And yet, as the appeals court decision showed, any effort by residents and municipal governments to use local law to regulate the presence of pipelines in their communities will likely be challenged and potentially struck down.
After the Eighth Circuit released its decision, Summit applauded the ruling, saying it "supports a consistent, lawful permitting process for critical infrastructure projects like ours," according to the Gazette.
While the appellate ruling has frustrated local efforts to have a say in whether and how pipelines pass through their communities, the decision explicitly did not block every available avenue.
"While we had hoped for a more decisive ruling affirming local control, the Court clearly acknowledged that counties can consider safety and implement zoning ordinances," said Emma Schmit, a member of Pipeline Fighters, a group opposed to the project, in a press release.
Join our free newsletter for good news and useful tips, and don't miss this cool list of easy ways to help yourself while helping the planet.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
UPI
an hour ago
- UPI
Appeals court panel rules against Louisiana Ten Commandments law
1 of 2 | Louisiana can not compel officials to display the Ten Commandments in public school and college classrooms, a federal appeals court has ruled. File Photo by John Angelillo/UPI | License Photo June 21 (UPI) -- Louisiana can not compel officials to display the Ten Commandments in public school and college classrooms, a federal appeals court has ruled. "Parents and students challenge a statute requiring public schools to permanently display the Ten Commandments in every classroom in Louisiana. The district court found the statute facially unconstitutional and preliminarily enjoined its enforcement. We affirm," the appeals court panel said in its 50-page ruling issued this week. The court ruled Louisiana's House Bill 71 violates the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, calling the requirement to display the Ten Commandments "plainly unconstitutional" while affirming a lower court ruling. "The district court did not abuse its discretion by finding that Plaintiffs satisfied the preliminary injunction elements," the appeals court wrote, citing a similar law and subsequent ruling in Kentucky in the 1980s. Last June, Gov. Jeff Landry, R-La., signed the bill, requiring that "each public school governing authority shall display the Ten Commandments in each classroom in each school under its jurisdiction." The law went into effect on Jan. 1 of this year but was challenged by a group that included parents and the American Civil Liberties Union of Louisiana. The appeals court panel agreed the law subjected students to "a state-preferred version of Christianity." All but five of the state's school districts are required to follow the law while the legal process plays out. The five districts where the parent plaintiffs live have a temporary exemption. "We believe that our children should receive their religious education a thome and within our communities, not from government officials," Rev. Darcy Roake, one of the plaintiffs in the case said in a statement following the ruling. "We are grateful for this decision, which honors the religious diversity and religious-freedom rights of public school families across Louisiana," said Roake, who is a Unitarian Universalist Minister. Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill has indicated she will now seek appeal from the appeals court's full judge panel and could attempt to have the case heard in front of the Supreme Court of the United State. "We strongly disagree with the Fifth Circuit's affirmance of an injunction preventing five Louisiana parishes from implementing HB71. We will immediately seek relief from the full Fifth Circuit and, if necessary, the United States Supreme Court," Murrill said in a statement. "We will immediately seek relief from the full FIfth CIrcuit and, if necessary the United States Supreme Court."
The Hill
10 hours ago
- The Hill
Supreme Court ruling scrambles battle for transgender care
The Supreme Court on Wednesday delivered a substantial blow to transgender-rights advocates in upholding a 2023 Tennessee law banning gender-affirming care for minors, a decision that could have far-reaching consequences for the future of transgender health in the U.S. but whose impact won't be felt right away. 'The immediate outcome is that it doesn't change anything,' said Kellan Baker, executive director of the Institute for Health Research and Policy at Whitman-Walker, a Washington-based nonprofit. 'It doesn't affect the availability or legality of care in states that do not have bans, and it simply says that states that have decided to ban this care can do so if they survive other challenges.' Twenty-seven Republican-led states since 2021 have adopted laws that ban transition-related care, including puberty blockers, hormone therapy and rare surgeries for minors. Laws passed in Arizona and New Hampshire — the first Northeastern state to have restricted gender dysphoria treatments for youth — only prohibit minors from accessing surgeries, a provision that was not at issue before the Supreme Court. In a 6-3 decision, the high court upheld a lower court ruling that found Tennessee's restrictions do not violate the U.S. Constitution's Equal Protection Clause. The state's law, which allows cisgender children and teens to access medications that it bans for trans minors, makes distinctions based on age and diagnosis, the courts ruled, rather than sex and transgender status. Three Tennessee families, a doctor and the Biden administration, along with attorneys at the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and Lambda Legal, argued the measure amounts to illegal sex discrimination, warranting heightened review. 'Having concluded it does not,' Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the majority on Wednesday, 'we leave questions regarding its policy to the people, their elected representatives, and the democratic process.' At least 10 legal challenges to state laws prohibiting health professionals from administering gender-affirming care to minors argue the restrictions discriminate based on sex in violation of the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. The Supreme Court's ruling Wednesday could potentially weaken, in some cases, that line of attack, but it is not the only approach opponents of the laws have pursued. More than a dozen other lawsuits, including ones arguing equal protection under the U.S. Constitution, claim bans on transition-related health care for minors violate the 14th Amendment's Due Process Clause, federal disability law or provisions of a state's constitution. In May, a federal judge struck Montana's ban on gender-affirming care for youth on grounds it violated privacy, equal protection and free speech rights guaranteed by its constitution. 'This ruling allows challenges to other state bans to continue,' said Baker, of Whitman-Walker, 'and they will.' Karen Loewy, senior counsel and director of Lambda Legal's constitutional law practice, told reporters on a Zoom call following Wednesday's ruling that the civil rights organization and others challenging state bans on gender-affirming care have other options at their disposal. 'The Supreme Court did not endorse the entirety of the lower court's ruling; it did not mandate or even greenlight other bans on gender-affirming medical care, even for young people, or other forms of discrimination,' she said. 'It really is about how it viewed Tennessee's in this specific way, and left us plenty of tools to fight other bans on health care and other discriminatory actions that target transgender people, including other equal protection arguments about transgender status discrimination, about the animus-based targeting of trans people.' Loewy added that the court's ruling also left the door open to arguments based on state and federal sex discrimination statutes and parental rights, which the justices did not address Wednesday. Nearly all of the cases brought against youth gender-affirming care bans argue those laws infringe on the rights of parents to make medical decisions on behalf of their children. 'As a parent, I know my child better than any government official ever will,' Samantha Williams, the mother of L.W., a transgender teenager who was at the center of the case before the Supreme Court, wrote in a New York Times op-ed after Wednesday's ruling. The Supreme Court's determination that Tennessee's law does not discriminate based on sex also raises questions about how opponents of transition-related health care for minors will use the ruling to inform their own legal strategies. In Arkansas, the ACLU successfully argued in 2023 that the first-in-the-nation ban on gender-affirming care for minors violated the U.S. Constitution's Equal Protection Clause, as well as its Due Process Clause and the First Amendment's protections of free speech. 'We'll have to see, but it's possible that that ban could stand because the court made that decision on equal protection, as well as on other grounds,' said Lindsey Dawson, director for LGBTQ health policy at KFF, a nonprofit health policy research, polling and news organization. 'This is likely to be an area that's going to face continued litigation and is not settled at this point in time.' In a statement Wednesday, Arkansas Attorney General Tim Griffin (R) said he is 'preparing an official notification' for an appeals court detailing the implications of Wednesday's Supreme Court decision on the state's ban, which the Legislature passed — and former Republican Gov. Asa Hutchinson initially vetoed — in 2021. 'Because our law is similar to Tennessee's law, today's decision has positive implications for our case before the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit,' he said. Montana and Arkansas are the only states whose bans on gender-affirming care for youth remain blocked by court orders, according to the Movement Advancement Project, a nonprofit group that tracks LGBTQ laws. The Supreme Court's ruling Wednesday also declined, as some court watchers had anticipated, to apply the reasoning of its earlier decision in Bostock v. Clayton County, which held that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 shields employees from discrimination based on their sex or gender identity. Some lawsuits challenging state bans on care for minors have said the ruling should apply to contexts other than workplace discrimination. Former President Biden's administration similarly sought to use the court's reasoning in Bostock to back new nondiscrimination policies protecting transgender people in health care and sports, arguments largely rejected by conservative political leaders and courts. 'We still don't have a sole understanding of where Bostock might apply outside of Title VII, and it's going to be something that's important to watch,' Dawson said. 'It's certainly something that the Bostock court warned us about,' she said. 'In that decision, the court said, this court is making its ruling and it's quite narrow, but it's going to be for future courts to decide how this applies outside of Title VII. That remains a question mark.'
a day ago
Court blocks Louisiana law requiring schools to post Ten Commandments in classrooms
NEW ORLEANS -- A panel of three federal appellate judges has ruled that a Louisiana law requiring the Ten Commandments to be posted in each of the state's public school classrooms is unconstitutional. The ruling Friday marked a major win for civil liberties groups who say the mandate violates the separation of church and state, and that the poster-sized displays would isolate students — especially those who are not Christian. The mandate has been touted by Republicans, including President Donald Trump, and marks one of the latest pushes by conservatives to incorporate religion into classrooms. Backers of the law argue the Ten Commandments belong in classrooms because they are historical and part of the foundation of U.S. law. The plaintiffs' attorneys and Louisiana disagreed on whether the appeals court's decision applied to every public school district in the state or only the districts party to the lawsuit. 'All school districts in the state are bound to comply with the U.S. Constitution,' said Liz Hayes, a spokesperson for Americans United for Separation of Church and State, which served as co-counsel for the plaintiffs. The appeals court's rulings 'interpret the law for all of Louisiana,' Hayes added. "Thus, all school districts must abide by this decision and should not post the Ten Commandments in their classrooms.' Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill said she disagreed and believed the ruling only applied to school districts in the five parishes that were party to the lawsuit and that she would seek to appeal the ruling. The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals' order stems from a lawsuit filed last year by parents of Louisiana school children from various religious backgrounds, who said the law violates First Amendment language guaranteeing religious liberty and forbidding government establishment of religion. The mandate was signed into law last June by Republican Gov. Jeff Landry. The court's ruling backs an order issued last fall by U.S. District Judge John deGravelles, who declared the mandate unconstitutional and ordered state education officials not to take steps to enforce it and to notify all local school boards in the state of his decision. Law experts have long said they expect the Louisiana case to make its way to the U.S. Supreme Court, testing the conservative court on the issue of religion and government. In 1980, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a similar Kentucky law violated the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which says Congress can 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion.' The high court found that the law had no secular purpose but served a plainly religious purpose. In 2005, the Supreme Court held that such displays in a pair of Kentucky courthouses violated the Constitution. At the same time, the court upheld a Ten Commandments marker on the grounds of the Texas state Capitol in Austin.
