Six states have joined with TransCanada to sue the Obama administration over its rejection of the Keystone XL pipeline permit application.
TransCanada filed the suit in a federal court in Houston in January, alleging that the president had overstepped his constitutionally granted powers. The right to regulate trans-border commerce is reserved for Congress, the suit says.
But the president denied the permit based on national security grounds, which is well within his rights, Center for Biological Diversity attorney Bill Snape told ThinkProgress.
“They are basically asking the court to second-guess the president on a national interest decision,” Snape said.
The states seem to be alleging that the Obama administration rejected the Keystone XL pipeline permit application because the president thought his own reputation was on the line.
“In [President Obama’s] view, overriding the States and Congress is necessary to preserve his stature on the world stage and his bargaining position in ongoing or future multinational negotiations,” wrote the attorneys general of Oklahoma, Kansas, Montana, Nebraska, South Dakota, and Texas, who this week filed an amicus brief in support of a suit against the federal government by Keystone’s developer, TransCanada.
Snape says that may well have been part of the president’s intention — and that it’s well within his purview to do so. “This law allows the president to make this decision and he gets to make it based on his interpretation of national interest,” Snape said.
This is not the first time Obama or his agencies — particularly the Department of the Interior and the Environmental Protection Agency — have been sued by the states for actions intended to reduce pollution or take action on climate change. The Waters of the United States Rule has been targeted. The Clean Power Plan is at the courts. The Mercury Rule went to the Supreme Court.
“At every step, he is sued,” Snape said. “Every. Single. Time.”
The states also argue that Keystone would have little environmental impact and would create “tens of thousands of jobs and billions in economic development.” To that end, the states weren’t the only parties to have jumped into the fray. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has also filed a brief in support of TransCanada.
“What TransCanada is really asking is for the United States to subsidize their failing industry in Canada,” Snape said. “They are stuck. They can’t get rid of that stuff now, because it’s dirty and the world is moving away from dirty fuels.”
In January, TransCanada also formally announced its intention to file a complaint under the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), seeking $15 billion in damages and lost revenue. The company was eligible to file the complaint on May 6, but has not yet done so.