A coalition of Wisconsin environmental advocacy groups filed a lawsuit Monday challenging an administrative law judge’s decision to uphold the Department of Natural Resource’s permit approval to reroute the Enbridge Line 5 oil pipeline across northern Wisconsin. 

The petition, filed in Iron County Circuit Court by Clean Wisconsin and Midwest Environmental Advocates on behalf of the Sierra Club, 350 Wisconsin and the League of Women Voters of Wisconsin, argues that the administrative law judge ignored extensive evidence that the pipeline reroute will damage local waterways. 

A similar lawsuit has also been filed by the Bad River Band of Lake Superior Chippewa. The tribe for years has fought against the pipeline, which currently runs across its land. The reroute is happening because a federal judge previously ruled the pipeline must be moved off tribal land, but the tribe argues the new proposed route will continue to harm its water resources. 

The administrative judge upheld the DNR’s permit decision after six weeks of hearings last year. The petitions from the environmental groups and the tribe move the case from the administrative legal process to the state’s court system. Separately, a challenge has been made against the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ Line 5 permit decisions. 

“We are more committed than ever to protecting Wisconsin’s waters from the irreversible harm this project threatens to cause. We believe the administrative ruling incorrectly decided critical legal and factual issues, and we are confident that our efforts to hold DNR and Enbridge accountable to Wisconsin’s environmental laws will ultimately be vindicated,” MEA Senior Staff Attorney Rob Lee said in a statement.

A coalition of public health and environmental groups filed a suit Wednesday challenging the Trump administration’s recent finding that the Environmental Protection Agency could not regulate climate-warming greenhouse gases.

EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin and President Donald Trump announced last week the administration was finalizing a repeal of the 2009 endangerment finding, which declared the agency could regulate greenhouse gas emissions, particularly from vehicle emissions, because climate change posed a danger to human health.

The 17 groups who jointly filed the suit Wednesday include the American Public Health Association, Clean Wisconsin, Union of Concerned Scientists, Earthjustice and Natural Resources Defense Council. 

‘Required by law to protect us’

Their two-page filing in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit does not detail any of the groups’ legal arguments against the repeal, but lawyers and officials for the groups said the EPA was legally bound, under the Clean Air Act, to protect people from greenhouse gas emissions. 

“They are required by law to protect us from air pollution that endangers public health and welfare,” Dr. Georges C. Benjamin, the CEO of the American Public Health Association, said on a video call with reporters. “And that includes greenhouse gases that are driving climate change.”

The law requires challenges to new nationwide agency actions on emissions to be filed in the D.C. Circuit.

In an email, EPA press secretary Brigit Hirsch said the agency had reviewed the endangerment finding, the Clean Air Act and related court decisions, including “robust analysis” of recent Supreme Court decisions. The agency concluded it did not have authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions.

“Unlike our predecessors, the Trump EPA is committed to following the law exactly as it is written and as Congress intended—not as others might wish it to be,” Hirsch said. 

“In the absence of such authority, the Endangerment Finding is not valid, and EPA cannot retain the regulations that resulted from it,” she continued. “EPA is bound by the laws established by Congress, including under the CAA. Congress never intended to give EPA authority to impose GHG regulations for cars and trucks.”

Emissions are pollutants, opponents say

But the groups said the EPA’s reasoning ignored that the agency has long regulated emissions as part of its mandate to protect clear air. The omission of the term “greenhouse gases” in the Clean Air Act is “a manufactured problem” by opponents of regulation, Hana Vizcarra, a senior attorney at Earthjustice, said.

“The Clean Air Act was intended to cover air pollutants, full stop. Air pollutants include greenhouse gases,” she said. “This argument that Congress needs to do something different to be able to regulate greenhouse gases… it’s just a way to avoid the issue and avoid regulation.”

The matter is “settled law,” the groups said, as federal courts have affirmed and reaffirmed the EPA’s power to regulate emissions.

A 2007 U.S. Supreme Court case established that the Clean Air Act “was unambiguous” in authorizing the EPA to regulate greenhouse gases as pollutants, Meredith Hankins, a senior attorney at NRDC, said. 

That decision led to the EPA’s so-called endangerment finding two years later, during President Barack Obama’s first year in office.

Attorneys general likely to weigh in

Wednesday’s challenge will likely be consolidated with other challenges, including those from “blue-state attorneys general,” Hankins said.

In the announcement last week, Trump said the endangerment finding, and the tailpipe emissions standards that relied on it, had dragged down the automotive sector and the broader economy nationwide.

The administration has said the move will save Americans more than $1 trillion by reducing regulations.

The repeal’s opponents, though, said Wednesday that projection ignored more than $100 billion in additional costs American drivers would see if fuel efficiency standards are relaxed or the enormous public health costs from worsened air quality and increased climate risks.

On Friday, an administrative law judge upheld a permit issued by the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources last year to allow the Canadian oil company Enbridge to build 41 miles of new pipeline in northern Wisconsin. The current rerouted path for Enbridge’s Line 5 would mean that although the pipeline would avoid the Bad River Band of Lake Superior Chippewa reservation, it would still go through the Bad River’s watershed. 

The judge’s decision is likely to be appealed, and the Bad River Band is continuing to challenge the pipeline project in federal court. But the approval of the DNR’s permit came as a blow to environmental advocates working alongside the Band to challenge Line 5. 

Evan Feinauer, an attorney with Clean Wisconsin, said that “despite this ruling, the evidence presented during the hearing remains undeniable: Enbridge’s Line 5 reroute poses significant long-term risks to wetlands, waterways, and treaty-protected resources in northern Wisconsin.” Feinauer said in a statement that “experts testified that the DNR underestimated ecological impacts, relied on an inadequate monitoring plan, and overlooked Enbridge’s troubling history of environmental violations. This decision does not erase those facts.”

John Petroskey, a senior attorney with Earthjustice, also said that the judge’s decision ignored “strong evidence that the DNR broke the law when it approved the Line 5 reroute.” Petroskey added, “Enbridge’s project threatens permanent damage to the Band’s treaty-protected water, plants, and medicines, all for the enrichment of a foreign oil pipeline company. The Band will continue to fight to protect their interests and halt construction.”

Rob Lee, senior staff attorney for Midwest Environmental Advocates, said that while the decision was disappointing, “it does not diminish our resolve or end our responsibility to protect Wisconsin’s waters from the irreversible harm this project threatens to cause.” Lee continued, “the record in this case is clear, and our work is far from over. Based on the significant legal issues presented and the strength of the record, we believe there is a strong basis for appellate review, and we are considering all appropriate next steps.”

Other environmental groups and tribal allies expressed that they remain determined to keep fighting Line 5. “Ultimately, this doesn’t change the fact that Line 5 must be shut down to protect the Great Lakes and our climate,” said Elizabeth Ward, chapter director of the Sierra Club – Wisconsin. Debta Cronmiller, executive director of the League of Women Voters of Wisconsin, said that standing up to Line 5 is in line with the group’s values of protecting sensitive environments, reducing greenhouse gas emissions, advancing renewable energy and supporting tribal rights. 

“Every effort to oppose the construction of new pipeline infrastructure builds power in the broader movement to end our reliance on dirty fossil fuels,” said Emily Park, co-executive director of 350 Wisconsin. “Instead of facilitating more carbon emissions, we should be investing in renewable energy, sustainable transportation, and technologies that will help us transition to a clean energy future.” 

Environmental groups and the Bad River Band are pushing for Line 5 to be shut down, with a court-imposed deadline for their case set in June. The reroute project would involve blasting and horizontal drilling through at least 186 waterways and 101 acres of high-quality wetlands which drain into Lake Superior.