Image 01 Image 03

14 State Attorney Generals Tell Biden They’re Reviewing Legal Options Regarding Keystone XL

14 State Attorney Generals Tell Biden They’re Reviewing Legal Options Regarding Keystone XL

“We cannot ‘Build Back Better’ by reflexively tearing down.”

Attorney generals in 14 states warned President Joe Biden they began “reviewing” legal options regarding his decision to revoke the Keystone XL pipeline.

“Your decision will result in devastating damage to many of our states and local communities,” they wrote.

The signers include:

  • Steve Marshall of Alabama
  • Leslie Rutledge of Arkansas
  • Christopher Carr of Georgia
  • Todd Rokita of Indiana
  • Derek Schmidt of Kansas
  • Jeff Landry of Louisiana
  • Lynn Fitch of Mississippi
  • Eric Schmitt of Missouri
  • Austin Knudsen of Montana
  • Wayne Stenehjem of North Dakota
  • Alan Wilson of South Carolina
  • Jason Ravnsborg of South Dakota
  • Ken Paxton of Texas
  • Patrick Morrisey of West Virginia

The AGs noted that Biden’s executive order cited “climate crisis,” but did not explain how eliminating the Keystone XL pipeline protects “Americans and the domestic economy from harmful climate impacts.”

But it’s obvious why Biden took this route: appealing to special interest groups.

The AGs reminded Biden he hurts the people he promised to help.

“We cannot ‘Build Back Better’ by reflexively tearing down,” they stressed. “America needs every tool in her possession to emerge from the COVID-19 crisis stronger and more secure. You have expressed a commitment to unite the Nation. If that is to be more than empty rhetoric, you must fully consider and account for the alarming effects your actions have on states, local communities, farmers, and workers.”

People may not believe in trickle-down economics, but it shows in Oklahoma, relying on the energy sector. The pipeline brings jobs, which means people. Those people need basics to survive. Companies see those needs and move to the community. The pipeline helps expand the areas around it.

Supply and demand. (Economics is not that hard. People seem to make it hard, so you can’t think for yourself, nod your head, and move on.)

Shutting down the Keystone XL pipeline means higher “heating and fuel costs for families and businesses” in America. It will also cause problems for “agriculture, transportation, manufacturing, and even the affordability of consumer goods.”

The AGs started “reviewing legal options to protect our residents and sovereign interests.”

The pipeline would have created 11,000 jobs. 8,000 of those jobs are union jobs.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


The legal option is to just ignore it

Joe “The Wrecking Ball” Biden needs to get wrecked himself over his executive orders. He richly deserves it. He is not King George III.

Now if you were a member of a powerful influential union say the NEA. Quid Pro would never have stopped the Keystone.

The Friendly Grizzly | February 10, 2021 at 11:59 am

ahem harumph cough “Attorneys General”. cough…

For some reason I don’t believe the Hawaiian Federal judges will go along with this. For them “Resistance” is a one-way street with all traffic flowing Left.

I’m surprised that Oklahoma did not sign on to this letter considering how many pipelines we have here and Cushing is a major oil transport hub.

Another growth example are the toll roads that were built as by-passes around Tulsa (Creek) and OKC (Kilpatrick). Good roads, wide open spaces, and a quicker way to get around meant that companies expanded into that space. Eventually apartments, homes, healthcare, smaller retail spaces were built. Sometimes, I just drive around to check out the growth.

    gonzotx in reply to Liz. | February 10, 2021 at 12:36 pm

    Hate toll roads

    healthguyfsu in reply to Liz. | February 10, 2021 at 12:43 pm

    I’m not sure why this letter was sent in the first place. Why place the courtesy call? Do you really think Biden’s admin is going to admit any wrong? They would sooner jump on a sacrificial pyre of the climate cult.

    To me, it’s just a heads up get your ducks in a row service call. If they had anything legally, it’s best to ambush him leftist style. Why our side shows courtesy when all we get is childish vitriol is beyond me.

    txvet2 in reply to Liz. | February 10, 2021 at 6:02 pm

    I guess Oklahoma likes to do things their own way.

Seems like the states could just go ahead and build the pipeline themselves and tell the Usurper to go suck eggs.

    healthguyfsu in reply to txvet2. | February 10, 2021 at 12:59 pm

    Technically, they could but the federal authorities could see to it that the pipeline lays unused.

    Also, the states would be footing the bill for what was a federally-funded project.

      I don’t think the Feds are involved in financing Keystone. A quick check indicates that Alberta is providing some financing and loan guarantees, but the US part is primarily financed by private banks.

        DaveGinOly in reply to txvet2. | February 10, 2021 at 3:30 pm

        Does the fed gov control any territory or properties along the path of the pipeline? If so, that could be the hook.

          Sure, they have to issue permits to cross the King’s (formerly public) lands, but they’ve obviously been issued years ago. I should think withdrawing them at this late date would be legally problematic. They also must have some role in interstate activity, but (not being a lawyer) I don’t see why (for instance) Nebraska and S. Dakota can’t handle a line between them without federal interference. Given that the company has already spent or committed billions on the project, it seems to me that they’d have plenty of cause to sue. Obviously it was a different administration and somewhat different circumstances (involving the proximity of a reservation, primarily), but they seem to have solved all of these problems with the Dakota Access line.

It’s time to use lawfare the way the Democrats did during Trump’s presidency. Sue them at every step of the way, keep appealing, and tie them up in the courts. Find friendly judges to issue injunctions–and make them produce the “evidence” that these decisions are based on.

Just failure theatre. So they sent a freaking letter to tell him that they’re reviewing their options and then they may consider doing something at some unspecified future point.

Wake me up when they actually do something.

Seems like the Dreamer case would be a good precedent here.

If I understand that case correctly, the Supreme Court told President Trump he couldn’t revoke an executive order signed by President Obama, because people had relied on that order.

Looks like the same thing to me.

    Valerie in reply to clintack. | February 10, 2021 at 2:59 pm

    I think that precedent is exactly applicable, that is, “on all fours.”

      gospace in reply to Valerie. | February 10, 2021 at 5:02 pm

      The difference is- Dreamer’s were breaking the law and relying on an unconstitutional executive order that, by the way, completely violated the section of the Constitution that states: he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,. People were being rewarded for breaking the law.

      In the pipeline case, everyone involved followed the law, and the executive order punishes them for following the law.

      Totally different. The first case was decided solely on the constitutional line that states “Orangeman Bad!” and therefore has no bearing on any case where someone else is POTUS.

    Milhouse in reply to clintack. | February 10, 2021 at 6:06 pm

    If I understand that case correctly, the Supreme Court told President Trump he couldn’t revoke an executive order signed by President Obama, because people had relied on that order.

    No, they didn’t tell him that. No court told him that. They said that rule making has to follow the APA, and therefore must have a rational basis. The mere fact that Trump received bad legal advice is not such a basis.