CHARLESTON — West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey partnered with Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton and 16 other states to ask the U.S. Supreme Court to stay a court order that affects the construction of an oil and gas pipeline.
"The lower court transformed a case challenging application of a permit on one pipeline project into a nationwide injunction affecting new oil and gas pipelines in every state, including West Virginia — no matter their length, purpose or minimal environmental effects," Morrisey said. "This decision hurts real, everyday working people. The Supreme Court should pause this terrible order before it has far-reaching effects."
With the lower court ruling, which brought about an unexpected halt to many construction projects, the 18-state coalition is arguing that without a stay to block its enforcement, it will disrupt the economy and the energy resources these types of projects provide nationwide.
The motion for leave to file an amicus brief and the brief were filed in the U.S. Supreme Court. The original lawsuit focuses on a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers permit that was used to authorize the Keystone XL pipeline.
The coalition contends that the district court order inappropriately used that issue to strike down all projects that employed the same permitting process. The 18-state coalition argues that the district court ruling will make needed infrastructure projects significantly more costly and time-consuming — and potentially render some completely unfeasible.
The court document notes that absent a stay, decision-makers for new oil and gas projects will face a lose-lose proposition.
"They could take the district court up on its alternative, sinking time and money into the individual permitting process, or they could wait to start construction until the Corps’ position is ultimately vindicated," the document states. "Either option will potentially add years to the timelines of projects that require substantial capital investment."
The states argue that some projects likely will not survive these setbacks.
"The district court was therefore too cavalier when dismissing these concerns as mere 'temporary economic harms,'" the document states.
The coalition argues that the Ninth Circuit was wrong not to stay the order in light of several concerns, making the Supreme Court’s intervention critical.
Besides West Virginia and Texas, the other states involved include Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota and Utah.
