Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 2K views

    9th Cir Denies Stay in NWP 12 Appeal

    Uploaded by

    Lowell Feld
    This order from the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit addresses three related appeals involving the Keystone XL pipeline. It grants several motions to file amicus briefs. It also grants a request to file an oversized reply brief. However, it denies emergency motions from Appellants to stay district court orders related to the pipeline pending the appeals, finding Appellants did not demonstrate a sufficient likelihood of success on the merits or probability of irreparable harm. The previously set briefing schedule for the appeals remains in place.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    9th Cir Denies Stay in NWP 12 Appeal

    Uploaded by

    Lowell Feld
    2K views3 pages
    This order from the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit addresses three related appeals involving the Keystone XL pipeline. It grants several motions to file amicus briefs. It also grants a request to file an oversized reply brief. However, it denies emergency motions from Appellants to stay district court orders related to the pipeline pending the appeals, finding Appellants did not demonstrate a sufficient likelihood of success on the merits or probability of irreparable harm. The previously set briefing schedule for the appeals remains in place.

    Original Description:

    9th Cir Denies Stay in NWP 12 Appeal

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This order from the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit addresses three related appeals involving the Keystone XL pipeline. It grants several motions to file amicus briefs. It also grants a request to file an oversized reply brief. However, it denies emergency motions from Appellants to stay district court orders related to the pipeline pending the appeals, finding Appellants did not demonstrate a sufficient likelihood of success on the merits or probability of irreparable harm. The previously set briefing schedule for the appeals remains in place.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    2K views3 pages

    9th Cir Denies Stay in NWP 12 Appeal

    Uploaded by

    Lowell Feld
    This order from the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit addresses three related appeals involving the Keystone XL pipeline. It grants several motions to file amicus briefs. It also grants a request to file an oversized reply brief. However, it denies emergency motions from Appellants to stay district court orders related to the pipeline pending the appeals, finding Appellants did not demonstrate a sufficient likelihood of success on the merits or probability of irreparable harm. The previously set briefing schedule for the appeals remains in place.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 3

    Case: 20-35415, 05/28/2020, ID: 11703762, DktEntry: 45, Page 1 of 3

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED


    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MAY 28 2020
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    NORTHERN PLAINS RESOURCE No. 20-35412
    COUNCIL; et al.,
    D.C. No. 4:19-cv-00044-BMM
    Plaintiffs-Appellees, District of Montana,
    Great Falls
    v.
    ORDER
    UNITED STATES ARMY CORPS OF
    ENGINEERS; TODD T. SEMONITE, In his
    official capacity and U.S. Army Chief of
    Engineers and Commanding General of the
    U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,

    Defendants-Appellants,

    and

    TRANSCANADA KEYSTONE PIPELINE,


    LP; et al.,

    Intervenor-Defendants.

    NORTHERN PLAINS RESOURCE No. 20-35414


    COUNCIL; et al.,
    D.C. No. 4:19-cv-00044-BMM
    Plaintiffs-Appellees,

    v.

    UNITED STATES ARMY CORPS OF


    ENGINEERS; TODD T. SEMONITE, In his
    official capacity and U.S. Army Chief of
    Engineers and Commanding General of the
    U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
    Case: 20-35415, 05/28/2020, ID: 11703762, DktEntry: 45, Page 2 of 3

    Defendants,

    TRANSCANADA KEYSTONE PIPELINE,


    LP; et al.,

    Intervenor-Defendants,

    and

    AMERICAN GAS ASSOCIATION; et al.,

    Intervenor-Defendants-
    Appellants.

    NORTHERN PLAINS RESOURCE No. 20-35415


    COUNCIL; et al.,
    D.C. No. 4:19-cv-00044-BMM
    Plaintiffs-Appellees,

    v.

    UNITED STATES ARMY CORPS OF


    ENGINEERS; TODD T. SEMONITE, In his
    official capacity and U.S. Army Chief of
    Engineers and Commanding General of the
    U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,

    Defendants,

    STATE OF MONTANA; et al.,

    Intervenor-Defendants,

    and

    TRANSCANADA KEYSTONE PIPELINE,


    LP; TC ENERGY CORPORATION,

    2 20-35412
    Case: 20-35415, 05/28/2020, ID: 11703762, DktEntry: 45, Page 3 of 3

    Intervenor-Defendants-
    Appellants.

    Before: SILVERMAN and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.

    The motions to become amicus curiae submitted by American Fuel &

    Petrochemical Manufacturers; Energy Infrastructure Council; the Chamber of

    Commerce of the United States; the States of West Virginia, Texas, Alabama,

    Alaska, Arkansas, Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Missouri,

    Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, and

    Utah; Defenders of Wildlife, Virginia Wilderness Committee, West Virginia

    Highlands Conservancy, and West Virginia Rivers Coalition; and the Rosebud

    Sioux Tribe and Fort Belknap Indian Community (Docket Entry Nos. 28, 30, 31,

    40, 51, and 53 in 20-35412) are granted.

    The Federal Appellants’ request to file an oversized reply in support of their

    motion for a stay pending appeal (Docket Entry No. 49 in 20-35412) is granted.

    Appellants’ emergency motions for a partial stay of the district court’s April

    15, 2020 and May 11, 2020 orders pending appeal (Docket Entry Nos. 11, 12, 19,

    and 34 in 20-35412) are denied. Appellants have not demonstrated a sufficient

    likelihood of success on the merits and probability of irreparable harm to warrant a

    stay pending appeal. See Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 425–26 (2009).

    The previously established briefing schedule remains in effect.

    3 20-35412

    You might also like