STATE OF TEXAS; STATE OF MONTANA; STATE OF ALABAMA; STATE OF ARIZONA; STATE OF ARKANSAS; STATE OF GEORGIA; STATE OF KANSAS; STATE OF KENTUCKY; STATE OF INDIANA; STATE OF LOUISIANA; STATE OF MISSISSIPPI; STATE OF MISSOURI; STATE OF NEBRASKA; STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA; STATE OF OHIO; STATE OF OKLAHOMA; STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA; STATE OF UTAH; STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA; and STATE OF WYOMING, Plaintiffs, v. JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR., in his official capacity as President of the United States; ANTONY J. BLINKEN, in his official capacity as Secretary of the Department of State; MERRICK B. GARLAND, in his official capacity as Attorney General of the United States; ALEJANDRO MAYORKAS, in his official capacity as Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security; SCOTT DE LA VEGA, in his official capacity as Acting Secretary of the Interior; JENNIFER GRANHOLM, in her official capacity as Secretary of the Department of Energy; JANE NISHIDA, in her official capacity as Acting Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency; PETE BUTTIGIEG, in his official capacity as Secretary of Transportation; and the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendants.

 

https://drive.google.com/file/d/153kHQChf5BsK_2TKhSQhiHN2BVYsf_og/view?usp=sharing 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
GALVESTON DIVISION
STATE OF TEXAS; STATE OF MONTANA; STATE OF ALABAMA; STATE OF ARIZONA; STATE OF ARKANSAS; STATE OF GEORGIA; STATE OF KANSAS; STATE OF KENTUCKY; STATE OF INDIANA; STATE OF LOUISIANA; STATE OF MISSISSIPPI; STATE OF MISSOURI; STATE OF NEBRASKA; STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA; STATE OF OHIO; STATE OF OKLAHOMA; STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA; STATE OF UTAH; STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA; and STATE OF WYOMING, Plaintiffs,
v.
JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR., in his official capacity as President of the United States; ANTONY J. BLINKEN, in his official capacity as Secretary of the Department of State; MERRICK B. GARLAND, in his official capacity as Attorney General of the United States; ALEJANDRO MAYORKAS, in his official capacity as Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security; SCOTT DE LA VEGA, in his official capacity as Acting Secretary of the Interior; JENNIFER GRANHOLM, in her official capacity as Secretary of the Department of Energy; JANE NISHIDA, in her official capacity as Acting Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency; PETE BUTTIGIEG, in his official capacity as Secretary of Transportation; and the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendants.
COMPLAINT

CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

COUNT I: Declaratory Judgment under 5 U.S.C. § 706 and 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201-02 that the President’s Revocation of the Keystone XL Pipeline Violates the U.S. Constitution’s Separation of Powers

COUNT II: Declaratory Judgment under 5 U.S.C. § 706 and 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201-02 that the President May Not Unilaterally Revoke the Keystone XL Pipeline Because Congress Expressly Granted it By Operation of Law

COUNT III: Declaratory Judgment Under 5 U.S.C. § 706 and 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201-02 that the Cabinet Defendants’ Implementation of the Revocation Exceeds their Statutory Authority

COUNT IV: Declaratory Judgment under 5 U.S.C. § 706 and 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201-02 that Revocation of the Keystone XL Violates the Non-Delegation Doctrine and thus Contrary to Law

COUNT V: Declaratory Judgment under 5 U.S.C. § 706 and 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201-02 that the Revocation Was Arbitrary and Capricious COUNT VI: Declaratory Judgment Under 5 U.S.C. § 706 that the Cabinet Defendants’ Implementation of the Revocation Is Void For Failure to Go Through Notice and Comment As Required By the APA

VI. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
Wherefore, Plaintiffs pray the Court: 

a. Declare that Defendants lack the legal authority to prohibit TC Energy from constructing and operating the Keystone XL cross-border facilities other than through the lawful exercise of statutory authority; 

b. Declare that the President’s decision in Section 6 of Executive Order 13990, “Revoking the March 2019 Permit for the Keystone XL Pipeline,” is unconstitutional and unlawful, and lacks legal effect; 

c. Declare that Defendants have no lawful basis to take any action to enforce or implement the decision purporting to revoke TC Energy’s permit to construct and operate Keystone XL cross-border facilities;

d. Preliminarily and permanently enjoin Defendants from taking any action to enforce, implement, or otherwise put into effect the decision revoking TC Energy’s permit to construct and operate Keystone XL cross-border facilities; 

e. Award Plaintiffs the costs of this action and reasonable attorney’s fees; and 

f. Award such other and further relief as the Court deems equitable and just.

REFERENCE:
THE WHITE HOUSE
BRIEFING ROOM
Executive Order on Protecting Public Health and the Environment and Restoring Science to Tackle the Climate Crisis
JANUARY 20, 2021 • PRESIDENTIAL ACTIONS