It’s a simple but incredibly powerful strategy: the pipeline is the new pipeline, and the pipeline companies are using it to build their businesses.
If they can keep pumping out the same product for the same amount of money, and with the same kind of customers, it’s easy to imagine a future in which a pipeline is built, and it can deliver goods at lower cost, faster, and in more places.
If you’ve been following the story of the Dakota Access Pipeline, you’ll be familiar with this narrative.
The project was halted in April after an emergency order from a federal judge blocking the project.
But since then, the pipeline has been repeatedly delayed by environmental activists and a federal court order, with one of the pipelines recently getting stuck in Missouri.
(The Missouri company is suing the federal government to get it to finish the pipeline.
The pipeline is expected to begin construction in 2019.)
But the pipeline also has an important role in a broader trend of pipelines moving more products and jobs overseas.
“There are hundreds of thousands of people that have been displaced and are living in temporary shelters because they’ve lost their livelihoods,” says David Tappe, a lawyer with the environmental group the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), which is fighting the Dakota Pipeline.
“That’s a big, big, huge, massive problem.”
The pipeline has had some setbacks as well.
Last year, the federal courts blocked the project from moving forward after the Obama administration issued a final order halting the pipeline, but it was put back on track in April, when the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case.
This week, the Supreme Supreme Court will hear arguments in a case that challenges the Obama order, and if the court rules in favor of the pipeline’s operators, it could set the stage for a much broader challenge to the entire pipeline system.
The Supreme Court case could also set a precedent for how the government can use the pipeline system to push jobs overseas—as a way to boost exports.
This summer, a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit heard oral arguments in the case that pits Amgen, the company building the pipeline in Nebraska, against a group of farmers who are challenging the project as part of their effort to stop the pipeline from crossing their land.
In a scathing opinion last year, Judge William Alsup explained that “the government has no legal right to deny the right of a farmer to build a pipeline that will carry his product to his customers, even though it has no right to do so, and even though, in the absence of the relevant law, such a right would violate the Commerce Clause.”
The farmers’ case, known as Farmers Against Pipelines v.
Bureau of Land Management, alleges that the Bureau of Livestock and Public Lands violated their rights under the U,S.
Constitution when it gave the company a permit to build the pipeline on their land, which they argue violates the federal law prohibiting land-use restrictions.
As a result, the farmers’ lawsuit argues that Amgen has violated the Constitution.
But the Supreme to date has been fairly conservative in upholding the Obama Administration’s permits for the pipeline to move forward.
In July, the court refused to hear a case in which an Oregon farmer argued that the pipeline violates the Fourth Amendment by making it harder for people to legally possess firearms.
In June, the justices rejected a similar case brought by a farmer in Texas who argued that Amge is a violation of the Constitution because it requires landowners to give up land for the project to go forward.
Both cases will now be sent to the Dauphin County Circuit Court for further consideration.
The Trump Administration has said it has the power to override the Supreme court’s ruling in both cases.
In either case, the Trump Administration is hoping to use the courts to keep the pipeline going as a way of boosting exports to Asia.
“This is not just about pipeline jobs, this is about what the government does with those jobs,” says Steve Bell, an Amgen spokesperson.
“If we’re able to get a pipeline going that does this thing that we think would have no other purpose, and that does not violate the Constitution, we have a very strong case.”
The Supreme court could also potentially overturn some of the decisions that have already been made by the Trump administration.
In 2016, the U