The federal court in Washington, D.C., heard oral argument on Wed., Mar. 18 in the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe's legal challenge to Dakota Access Pipeline. The Tribe is asking the Court to shut the pipeline down. The Court indicated that it would issue a ruling in around a week. Read an explainer of what's happening now.

The Standing Rock Sioux Tribe successfully intervened in the proceeding and will put on evidence that the expansion is unsafe and risky.

The North Dakota Public Service Commission will hold a hearing on Nov. 13 in Linton, ND, to evaluate whether or not a permit should be granted for this expansion.

Even though the litigation over its permitting continues, DAPL has proposed to double the capacity of the pipeline, to a staggering 1.1 million barrels (over 46 million gallons) of Bakken crude oil every day.

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers filed its opposition to the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe’s motion for summary judgment and memorandum in support of the Corps’ cross-motion for summary judgment. Read the legal document.

Mike Faith, Jr., Chairman of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, issued this statement: “The remand was insincere. The Corps ignored the Tribe’s concerns and worked with DAPL to justify a foregone decision. This illegal and dangerous pipeline must be shut down.”

The Tribe asks the Court to vacate an easement that was granted to allow pipeline construction. This would effectively halt Dakota Access Pipeline operations while the Corps conducted a full-fledged environmental review. (Read an explainer of this latest legal development.)

The Tribe’s brief recounts the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ failure to meaningfully respond to the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe’s concerns throughout the remand process, in violation of federal environmental law. The Corps completely shut the Tribe out of the process, refusing to share technical information prepared by DAPL, and ignored extensive technical input from the Tribe showing that DAPL’s estimates of an oil spill risk were gravely underestimated.

The Standing Rock Sioux Tribe’s continuing legal battle against the Dakota Access Pipeline advanced with a motion for summary judgment filed in U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C.

Tribe Renews Legal Challenge to DAPL Permits The Standing Rock Sioux Tribe filed a supplemental complaint against the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, in its ongoing lawsuit challenging federal permits for the Dakota Access pipeline. The new stage in the lawsuit comes after the Army Corps released a report — following over a year of study — that continued to dismiss the Tribe’s concerns about the risks of an oil spill on the Missouri River, where the pipeline crosses just half a mile upstream of the Tribe’s reservation. (Read an explainer of this latest legal development.) Mike Faith, Jr., Chairman of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, issued this statement: “The Corps has conducted a sham process to arrive at a sham conclusion, for the second time. The Dakota Access Pipeline represents a clear and present danger to the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe and its people, and we will continue to fight until the Corps complies with the law.”

DAPL Remand Decision Issued The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers issued a decision affirming its original decision to issue a construction permit for the Dakota Access Pipeline. Read document. Earthjustice attorney Jan Hasselman, who represents the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe in their lawsuit against the Army Corps, explains what the decision means. Read analysis. Mike Faith, Jr., Chairman of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, issued this statement: “The Army Corps’ decision to rubberstamp its illegal and flawed permit for DAPL will not stand. A federal judge declared the DAPL permits to be illegal, and ordered the Corps to take a fresh look at the risks of an oil spill and the impacts to the Tribe and its Treaty rights. That is not what the Army Corps did. Instead, we got a cynical and one-sided document designed to paper over mistakes, not address the Tribe’s legitimate concerns. The Tribe has worked in good faith every step of the way to develop technical and cultural information to help the Corps fully understand the consequences of permitting this pipeline. They took our hard work and threw it in the trash. The Tribe will be reviewing this decision closely, and determine how best to proceed in close consultation with our membership, staff, and advisors. In the meantime, we will continue to extend an open hand to the Army Corps to continue an honest dialogue about the impacts of this pipeline to the Standing Rock.”

Previous Updates:

Court Opinion on Conditions Today, Judge James Boasberg of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, citing the recent Keystone oil spill in South Dakota, imposed several interim measures over the ongoing operation of the Dakota Access pipeline. The Court ordered three different measures, all of which were requested by the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe. First, the Court ordered the Corps and DAPL to work with the Tribes to complete oil spill response plans at Lake Oahe. Up to now, the Tribe has been kept in the dark about spill response planning and was not involved in the process of developing plans to address spills at Lake Oahe. Second, the Court ordered an independent audit of DAPL’s compliance with the permit conditions and standards. The Tribe has to be involved in the selection of an auditor. Finally, DAPL must file regular reports on any incidents or repairs on the pipeline. Such reporting is not currently required by law, which means the public does not learn about the nearly constant spills and leaks of oil that occur on major pipelines. All three conditions were opposed by the Corps and by DAPL. Read the court document.

Read the press release.

Court Rules Dakota Access Pipeline to Remain Operational, For Now; The Fight Continues On Oct. 11, 2017, a federal judge ruled that the Dakota Access pipeline can continue operating pending an environmental review by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The Standing Rock Sioux Tribe sued the Corps in July 2016, arguing that the pipeline destroyed sacred sites and threatens the water quality of the Standing Rock Indian Reservation that sits downstream of the site where the pipeline crosses the Missouri River in North Dakota. In the ruling , the Court found that shutting down the pipeline would not cause major economic disruption, as DAPL claimed. However, the Court found a possibility that the Army Corps would be able to justify its decision not to do a full environmental review, and hence refused to shut down the pipeline while that process was underway. The Corps estimates that the new environmental review will be completed by April 2018. “This pipeline represents a threat to the livelihoods and health of our Nation every day it is operational,” said Standing Rock Sioux Chairman Mike Faith. “It only makes sense to shut down the pipeline while the Army Corps addresses the risks that this court found it did not adequately study. From the very beginning of our lawsuit, what we have wanted is for the threat this pipeline poses to the people of Standing Rock Indian reservation to be acknowledged. Today, our concerns have not been heard and the threat persists.” “Today’s decision is a disappointing continuation of a historic pattern: other people get all the profits, and the Tribes get all the risk and harm,” said Jan Hasselman, Earthjustice Attorney representing the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe. “The court already found that the Corps violated the law when it issued the permits without thoroughly considering the impact on the people of Standing Rock. The company should not be allowed to continue operating while the Corps studies that threat.” Read full press release.

What did the court decide on Oct. 11, 2017? In a 28-page opinion , the court weighed two factors to determine whether or not the pipeline should be shut down. First, it asked whether it was “possible” that the Corps would be able to justify its previous decision not to conduct a full environmental review once the remand is complete. The court answered that question in the affirmative. Second, it assessed the disruptive consequences if the pipeline were shut down. On this issue, the court largely rejected Energy Transfer Partners’ claims that a shutdown would cause substantial economic harm, finding that the company bore some responsibility for its situation by starting operations while the case was being litigated. However, the court found that the first factor was sufficient to rule against shutting down the pipeline.

What about other protective measures? In its legal briefs , the Tribe had asked that if the pipeline were not shut down, then the court should impose additional measures to reduce the risk of oil spills to protect the Tribe. Specifically, the Tribe called for better oil spill response planning, a third-party audit of DAPL’s compliance, and better public reporting. The court rejected the Corps’ and DAPL’s argument that the court didn’t have authority to impose such measures, but offered an opportunity for them to respond on the substance of the Tribe’s proposal. The details and timing of this process will be worked out at a status conference the week of October 16.

Can the Oct. 11, 2017, decision be appealed? Because the district court case remains live, and the remand process is underway, this is not an appealable decision at this time.

What’s next for this case? The Tribe intends to focus on the remand process and has a technical team of experts assisting it in providing input. The Corps has invited the Tribe to provide input into the remand, and that process is currently underway. The goal—as it has been from the beginning—is to demonstrate that the risks of an oil spill, and the impacts on the Tribe, are sufficient to require a full environmental impact statement to be prepared, which would reopen the discussion around an appropriate location for crossing the Missouri River. The Corps has stated that process should be complete by April of next year. The court admonished the Corps not to treat this process as a “bureaucratic formality” but to give “serious consideration” to the errors identified by the court.

What’s the background of this case up to today? When Energy Transfer Partners proposed a new 1,200-mile oil pipeline from the Bakken oil fields to the Midwest, it chose a route crossing the Missouri River just yards upstream from the Standing Rock Sioux reservation. The Tribe’s principled resistance to the project captured the attention of the entire world, leading to historic protests at the remote site in North Dakota. The Obama administration vindicated the Tribe’s concerns when it blocked the final permits to cross the Missouri River and promised a full environmental review that looked at the Tribe’s treaty rights as well as alternative routes. Within days of his inauguration, however, Donald Trump ordered the permits granted . The Tribe filed a lawsuit to challenge this decision, but construction was completed while the case was proceeding. In June, just weeks after pipeline operations had begun, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia ruled for the Tribe that the Army Corps had not complied with environmental review laws before issuing permits for the pipeline to cross the Missouri River. The Army Corp’s lack of compliance lay at the heart of the Tribe’s concerns about the project—the failure to address robust expert critiques of oil spill risk, the failure to address the impacts of an oil spill on the Tribe’s treaty rights and the failure to adequately consider the environmental justice implications of siting the pipeline just upstream of the Standing Rock reservation. In its June decision, the court ordered the Army Corps to do a new analysis of these critical issues, in what is called a “remand” process. The court ordered separate briefing to assess whether the pipeline should be shut down while the remand process is going on. The decision on Oct. 11 addresses that question.

Even Earlier Updates:

July 17, 2017: Briefs filed Following the Court’s order, on July 17, DAPL and the Army Corps filed briefs explaining why the pipeline should not be shut down pending the new environmental analysis is undertaken. Proposed amicus briefs were also filed by the North Dakota Petroleum Council and a coalition of industry groups The Corps’ brief also provides for the first time some additional details about the process to review the flaws in its previous environmental assessment, anticipating a process that would be completed by December of 2017. The Corps does not commit either to performing an EIS or even providing opportunities for public comment.

June 21, 2017: Briefing schedule set The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia held a hearing on June 21 to set a briefing schedule for the continuation of the lawsuit, including a timeline for arguing whether the pipeline must be shut down while the Corps attempts to comply with the Judge’s orders. "While our legal battle is not over, we have made progress and now must focus on convincing the court to stop the flow of oil while this administration moves forward in unveiling its plan for complying with the law," said Dave Archambault II, Chairman of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, in advance of the hearing. Attorney Jan Hasselman gave an update on Facebook Live following the hearing. Additional resources: in-depth background on this litigation. What the June 14 court ruling means and

In a victory for the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, on June 14, 2017, the Court found that approval of Dakota Access Pipeline violated the law. In a 91-page decision , Judge James Boasberg ruled that the federal permits authorizing the pipeline to cross the Missouri River just upstream of the Standing Rock reservation, which were hastily issued by the Trump administration just days after the inauguration, violated the law in certain critical respects. (Read full news release.) “We applaud the courts for protecting our laws and regulations from undue political influence,” said Standing Rock Sioux Chairman Dave Archambault II, “and will ask the Court to shut down pipeline operations immediately.”

What does the June 14, 2017, Court decision mean? The Court found that the Army Corps’ permits were illegal in some respects and legal in others. It also found that the Trump administration decision fell short in three important respects, all of them fundamental to the Tribe’s concerns. The Court did not determine whether pipeline operations should be shut off and requested additional briefing on the subject. Earthjustice attorney Jan Hasselman, lead counsel to the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, breaks down the details of the June 14 court ruling, and explains what happens next, in DAPL Ruling: What Was Decided, What’s Next?

What will happen with the pipeline in the interim of the new environmental review? Normally, when a federal agency violates the law by not looking at environmental risks well enough, the appropriate remedy is to invalidate the underlying permit. Without a permit, the pipeline cannot operate. The Judge has asked the parties to submit legal briefs on that question. Over the course of the summer, the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe will be making our best arguments to the Court that the Judge should shut down the pipeline pending the completion of a lawful environmental review . We expect a decision around September.

About The Litigation:

Why did the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe bring a lawsuit? The Standing Rock Sioux Tribe is deeply concerned about the construction of the major crude-oil pipeline that passes through its ancestral lands.

What are the key legal issues in this case? The motion for summary judgment , filed on Feb. 14, asked the Judge to rule on major legal questions that have not yet been resolved during this case, including whether National Environmental Policy Act requirements have been met and whether the Corps’ actions violate the Tribe’s Treaty rights. Our lawsuit raises three critical claims, and asks the court to throw out the federal approvals. First, the law requires a full, transparent and public environmental review for any federal action that has “significant” environmental effects. These environmental reviews have been prepared for decisions as mundane as off-leash dog areas and allowing jet skis in parks. The idea that a 30-inch crude-oil pipeline under one of the most economically and culturally important waterways in the nation isn’t significant enough to warrant an environmental review is absurd. Second, the history of the U.S. government’s broken promises to the Sioux people is long and tragic. No one disputes that the Tribe has important Treaty rights that guarantee the integrity of its reservation. This means that the federal government and its agencies cannot take any federal action that harms the Standing Rock reservation or the water in the Missouri River on which the people of Standing Rock depend. The Obama administration made a carefully considered decision that these Treaty rights needed to be respected in connection with an oil pipeline immediately upstream of the reservation. The Trump administration ignored that advice, and acted as if the Tribe does not exist. And finally, there are limits on the extent to which one administration can reverse the decisions of its predecessor. While federal agencies can change their minds about matters of policy, the courts will set aside reversals that are not fully justified and explained. Additional details on the key merits of this case.

Where can I find a recap of the dramatic events of the summer, fall, and winter of 2016? "Things moved very fast." Read an account from Earthjustice attorney Jan Hasselman on seeking the preliminary injunction, the Court's ruling on the request, and the remarkable announcement issued by the Army Corps of Engineers and the Department of Justice and Interior.

Where can I find an explanation and summary of the Tribe’s legal fight?

In the spring of 2017, Earthjustice attorney Jan Hasselman, lead counsel to the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, provides an overview of the origins of this historic legal case and an explanation of the case up until that point. See: Standing With Standing Rock In the spring of 2017, Earthjustice attorney Jan Hasselman, lead counsel to the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, provides an overview of the origins of this historic legal case and an explanation of the case up until that point. Additionally, the timeline section of this FAQ gives a summary of key events.

Where can I find legal documents related to this case? In the key documents section of this FAQ.

Setting The Record Straight. Selected excerpts from Setting The Record Straight: On Feb. 23, the Tribe issued a report on engagement on the Dakota Access Pipeline. The Tribe was fully engaged from the beginning. The Tribe contacted the Army Corps, even before DAPL applied for permits, to express its deep concerns about the pipeline in this location and its effect on the Tribe’s treaty rights and cultural sites. The Tribe contacted the Army Corps, even before DAPL applied for permits, to express its deep concerns about the pipeline in this location and its effect on the Tribe’s treaty rights and cultural sites. (The full story.) In September 2014, the Tribe made its overwhelming objection to the proposal clear to DAPL representatives, and promised to fight them if they proceeded in the proposed location. A recording of what was said: (Transcript) The Corps did not hold 389 meetings with Tribes. A significant portion of that '389' number were requests from Tribes to the Corps seeking information about the proposed pipeline and the Corps’ process for reviewing it, raising concerns and objections, and requesting meetings to discuss those concerns—many of which were ignored by the Corps. The Tribe participated fully in the NEPA process. The Tribe submitted three lengthy sets of technical and legal comments on the December 2015 draft EA, comprising hundreds of pages, raising objections and seeking better analysis of spill risks and the Tribe’s treaty rights. The Tribe sought to protect its rights when no one else would. The Tribe refused to get out of DAPL’s way and allow them to do something the Tribe thought was illegal and immoral. Neither the Corps nor DAPL ever explained why, if the pipeline was so safe, they didn’t select the alternative route and cross the Missouri River north of Bismarck where the river is narrower. The Corps relied on flawed, one-sided analysis prepared by DAPL—and never subjected to any independent review—minimizing the risks of oil spill, and ignored the Tribe’s treaty rights to water, fishing, and hunting. In December 2016, the Corps correctly found that those issues needed further consideration through an EIS process. On his second full day in office, the Trump administration overruled the Corps and ordered the permits to be granted. Standing Rock Chairman Archambault was on his way to meet with the White House when the easement was issued—no one from the Trump administration ever talked to a representative of the Tribe before ordering the project to go forward. The new administration failed to engage in good faith in the process. See full document.

Dakota Access Pipeline: Oil Spill on April 6 “The Dakota Access pipeline has not yet started shipping the proposed half million barrels of oil per day, and we are already seeing confirmed reports of oil spills from the pipeline. This is what we have said all along: oil pipelines leak and spill,” said Dave Archambault II, Chairman of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe . “Our lawsuit challenging this dangerous project is ongoing, and it’s more important than ever for the court to step in and halt additional accidents before they happen—not just for the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe and our resources, but for the 17 million people whose drinking water is at risk.” In an interview with The Guardian on the spill, Earthjustice attorney Jan Hasselman, lead counsel to the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, questioned, “What kind of oversight and accountability is there, if no one even finds out about these things until weeks later?”

Timeline of Events:

Key Legal Documents: