Keystone XL Pipeline ~ 21 states file Constitutional case to overthrow Biden's Exec. Order shutting it down


Jerk in a Hawaiian Shirt & SNOWCAT Moderator
Staff member
GOLD Site Supporter
Interesting article on a oil pipeline that basically goes to the argument of INTERSTATE COMMERCE

I've served on federal grand juries that worked on cases where gang bangers were charged with violating interstate commerce by robbing a single brand store of a chain of stores had multiple locations spread across multiple states. Using the courts logic, in the cases I was involved in actually it makes sense that the President cannot strike down a Congressionally approved interstate project. It will be interesting to see where this goes. But it seems, at least to my less-than-legal mind, that the states may have legal standing and a strong argument in their favor to restore the construction of the Keystone XL pipeline.

Do 21 States Have a 'Strong Constitutional Case' Against Biden for Halting the Keystone Pipeline?

Do 21 States Have a 'Strong Constitutional Case' Against Biden for Halting the Keystone Pipeline?
Earlier this month, a group of 21 states filed a lawsuit against the Biden administration over the president's decision to halt the construction of the Keystone XL Pipeline, which would transport barrels of oil from Canada and Montana to refineries in Texas.
According to Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen, one of the lead plaintiffs in the case, the 21 states have a "strong constitutional case" against the Biden administration.
“Interstate and international commerce, according to the Constitution, has to be regulated by Congress not by the president. And that’s really the crux of our argument here," Knudsen told Breitbart News Sunday. “I think we have a strong Constitutional case."
This is the reoccurring theme throughout the lawsuit. The states argue Biden violated the Constitution when he used executive action to cancel the Keystone XL Pipeline, even after receiving Congressional approval back in 2011.
"The President lacks the power to enact his 'ambitious plan' to reshape the economy in defiance of Congress’s unwillingness to do so. To the extent that Congress had delegated such authority, it would violate the non-delegation doctrine," the lawsuit states. "But Congress has not delegated such authority: It set specific rules regarding what actions the President can take about Keystone XL and when. The President, together with various senior executive officials, violated those rules."
Not only does canceling the pipeline have a detrimental impact on the local jobs and the economy, but public services – fire departments, police departments, schools, and roads – suffer without the additional tax revenue. The poorest counties throughout Montana were going to benefit from the Keystone, Knudsen said.
Based on Biden's decision to cancel the Keystone Pipeline, the states say they will see a drastic loss in tax revenue. It's estimated that $4 million in tax revenue will be lost over the span of one-year in counties that would house construction workers building the pipeline. Another $66 million in short-term revenue from sales and uses taxes would be lost across all the states impacted, the lawsuit states.
“This pipeline project was set to become the largest property tax payer in all of these counties,” he explained. “And was going to bring in $50 million to $60 million just in property tax revenue to the state and to these counties.”
According to Knudsen, if a president wanted to kill the project, it should have been then-President Barack Obama.
“[The pipeline] has been vetted for years. It was actually already approved by the U.S. Congress once, clear back in 2011," he told Breitbart. “President Obama at that time had his chance to veto that bill and he didn’t do it."
This is another example of executive overreach. Biden has marked the first few months of his presidency with a record number of executive orders. But no one should be surprised. He's trying to outdo his former boss, Barack Obama. Biden probably figures if he legislates with a pen that he'll be just as charismatic and popular as Obama (even though it will never happen).


Master of Distraction
Staff member
SUPER Site Supporter
Canada will never get a pipeline to the west coast. The eco-warriors, native indians, and liberal politicians in Canada are well funded by US and International "environmental" special interests. They block any attempts to build pipelines or increase rail shipping of oil to the western ports. The only chance that the Canadian pipeline gets built is if China dumps more cash into Canada (aka bribing the politicians) - which is actually possible. However, since China is now flaunting the US influence in the middle east they will be getting more oil out of Iran and that may make Canada look less attractive.

If this suit hits the SCOTUS it will be a good test of how deep the Democrats control the court.


Jerk in a Hawaiian Shirt & SNOWCAT Moderator
Staff member
GOLD Site Supporter
NBC News reported this a few days ago, somehow I missed it.

I'm sure Indiana joined into this lawsuit because the auto industry is a major source of employment in our state. Get rid of gas powered cars and our transmission production, and the jobs that go with those, will likely plummet as electric vehicles don't use conventional transmissions. This is the RIPPLE EFFECT of job losses that will come from these types of actions.

21 Republican-led states sue Biden over Keystone XL rejection

The lawsuit alleges that the president exceeded his authority by revoking the pipeline permit on his first day in office.​

Josh Lederman is an NBC News correspondent.
March 17, 2021, 6:57 PM CDT
Texas, Montana and 19 other Republican-led states are suing President Joe Biden in federal court over his rejection of the Keystone XL pipeline.

The lawsuit, which also names Secretary of State Antony Blinken and other Cabinet members, was filed Wednesday in U.S. District Court for Southern Texas. Along with Texas and Montana, the other plaintiffs are Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Utah, West Virginia and Wyoming.

Many of the states aren't near the proposed path for Keystone XL, which would carry oil from tar sands in Alberta to refineries along the Texas Gulf Coast. So why do they believe they have standing? The Montana attorney general's office says it's because killing the pipeline would "also have a ripple effect that adversely impacts the economy and environment in non-pipeline states."

The GOP-led states argue that by revoking the permit on his first day in office, Biden exceeded his authority because of a provision Congress tucked into tax legislation in 2011 that required President Barack Obama to either approve the pipeline within 60 days or issue a determination that it wasn't in the national interest.

Obama rejected the application by TransCanada (now TC Energy Corp.) a few weeks later, saying Congress gave him insufficient time, but he allowed the company to reapply, which deferred the decision until after he was re-elected. Obama later rejected the application, President Donald Trump approved it, and Biden revoked the approval.

The pipeline requires a presidential permit and a national interest determination because it crosses an international border (with Canada).

A Justice Department spokeswoman declined to comment on the lawsuit.

Twelve states — including many of the same ones suing over Keystone XL — sued Biden last month over a climate executive order that issued a binding determination of the "social cost of carbon."

Those 12 — Arkansas, Arizona, Indiana, Kansas, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee and Utah — allege that Biden exceeded his authority by issuing the binding calculation of the social cost of carbon, which is factored into federal regulations, permitting decisions by the federal government and other decisions. Last month, acting on the executive order, the Biden administration temporarily and dramatically increased its calculation of the social cost of carbon to $51 per ton, reversing the Trump administration's approach, which downplayed climate change's cost to society.

The attorneys general argue that the Biden administration's calculation of the social costs of greenhouse cases is "arbitrary and capricious" and say it will have detrimental effects on the economy, especially in rural states.