August, 18 2017, 03:00pm EDT
Court Upholds New York State's Rejection of the Constitution Pipeline
Industry’s challenge to New York State’s authority fails
NEW YORK
Today, The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit upheld the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC)'s decision to block a 124-mile natural gas pipeline project from moving forward in New York State, stating the plaintiffs had "no basis."
In April of 2016, NYSDEC denied the Constitution Pipeline's request for a necessary Clean Water Act permit because the potentially devastating impact this joint venture between four gas companies could have on the environment. NYSDEC concluded that the company failed to meaningfully address the project's profound water resource impacts.
"Today's ruling confirms the independent authority and responsibility of states to protect their waterbodies from natural gas pipelines that carve through and degrade critical watersheds," said Earthjustice attorney Moneen Nasmith, who represented Catskill Mountainkeeper, Riverkeeper, and Sierra Club as intervenors helping to defend NYSDEC's decision.
"This is not just a victory for the people impacted along the pipeline route, but gives hope across the country for people facing the onslaught of oil and gas infrastructure," said Wes Gillingham, Associate Director for Catskill Mountainkeeper. "The collective efforts of individuals and local, regional, and national groups--including terrific legal representation by Earthjustice--prevented the pipeline from plowing through our communities and damaging our waterways."
"With today's ruling, the Court of Appeals has affirmed the rights of states to reasonably protect their water resources from oversized infrastructure projects that run roughshod over states' natural resources. The Sierra Club applauds Governor Cuomo's leadership in protecting New York's water and Attorney General Schneiderman's legal defense of the decision to halt the Constitution Pipeline," said Roger Downs, Conservation Director, Sierra Club Atlantic Chapter.
"We're pleased that the Court upheld the DEC's decisive action against this destructive pipeline project," said Riverkeeper president Paul Gallay. "This project would have been bad news for New York waters and communities, and the court's decision will help ensure that important waterways in the State, including the Hudson River and Schoharie Creek, will be protected."
In New York State alone, the Constitution Pipeline would have cut a 100-foot wide swath through 4 counties, crossing waterways 251 times and stripping the area of thousands of acres of trees. Although the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) had already approved the pipeline, NYSDEC concluded that Constitution did not provide enough information to insure that the pipeline would comply with the Clean Water Act.
The pipeline's proponent challenged NYSDEC's decision, arguing that Constitution had provided all the information NYSDEC needed to grant the certification, and that NYSDEC had exceeded its authority under the Clean Water Act and could not contradict FERC.
The ruling today found that "federal law entitled NYSDEC to conduct its own review of the [Constitution Pipeline's] likely effects on New York waterbodies." The court also concluded that Constitution never provided NYSDEC with the necessary information NYSDEC "consistently and explicitly requested over the course of several years."
Earthjustice is a non-profit public interest law firm dedicated to protecting the magnificent places, natural resources, and wildlife of this earth, and to defending the right of all people to a healthy environment. We bring about far-reaching change by enforcing and strengthening environmental laws on behalf of hundreds of organizations, coalitions and communities.
800-584-6460LATEST NEWS
ICC Slams New US Sanctions on Judges as 'Flagrant Attack' on Rule of Law
"When judicial actors are threatened for applying the law, it is the international legal order itself that is placed at risk," the court said.
Dec 18, 2025
The International Criminal Court and human rights groups on Thursday condemned new US sanctions on two more of the tribunal's judges, which brought the total number of sanctioned ICC jurists to 11 amid the Trump administration's escalating campaign of retaliation against people and institutions seeking to hold Israel and the United States accountable for their alleged crimes.
"Today, I am designating two International Criminal Court (ICC) judges, Gocha Lordkipanidze of Georgia and Erdenebalsuren Damdin of Mongolia, pursuant to Executive Order 14203, 'Imposing Sanctions on the International Criminal Court,'" US Secretary of State Marco Rubio said in a statement, referring to President Donald Trump's February edict.
"These individuals have directly engaged in efforts by the ICC to investigate, arrest, detain, or prosecute Israeli nationals, without Israel’s consent, including voting with the majority in favor of the ICC’s ruling against Israel’s appeal on December 15," Rubio added, referencing Monday's rejection of an Israeli bid to block a probe into alleged war crimes committed during the genocidal two-year war on Gaza.
Although Israel and the US are not ICC members and do not recognize the Hague-based tribunal's jurisdiction, Palestine is a state party to the Rome Statute governing the court. The treaty says that individuals from nonsignatory nations can be held liable for crimes committed in the territory of a member state.
Last year, the ICC issued warrants for the arrest of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant for alleged crimes against humanity and war crimes in Gaza, including murder and forced starvation in a war that has left more than 250,000 Palestinians dead, wounded, or missing.
The Trump administration had previously sanctioned nine other ICC jurists: Chief Prosecutor Karim Khan (United Kingdom), Deputy Prosecutor Nazhat Shameem Khan (Fiji), Deputy Prosecutor Mame Mandiaye Niang (Senegal), Judge Solomy Balungi Bossa (Uganda), Judge Luz del Carmen Ibáñez Carranza (Peru), Judge Reine Adelaide Sophie Alapini-Gansou (Benin), Judge Beti Hohler (Slovenia), Judge Nicolas Yann Guillou (France), and Judge Kimberly Prost (Canada).
The affected judges have recently described how the US sanctions have left them and their families—who are also blacklisted—"wiped out economically and socially."
Responding to the new US punitive measures, the ICC said Thursday that "these sanctions are a flagrant attack against the independence of an impartial judicial institution which operates pursuant to the mandate conferred by its states parties from across regions."
"Such measures targeting judges and prosecutors who were elected by the states parties undermine the rule of law," the court continued. "When judicial actors are threatened for applying the law, it is the international legal order itself that is placed at risk."
"As previously stated, the court stands firmly behind its personnel and behind victims of unimaginable atrocities," the ICC added. "It will continue to carry out its mandate with independence and impartiality, in full accordance with the Rome Statute and in the interest of victims of international crimes."
Human Rights Watch also slammed the new US sanctions, which the group called "the latest attempt by the Trump administration to blatantly interfere with independent justice."
The US government has imposed sanctions on two additional ICC judges in order to shield Israeli officials from charges of grave international crimes.These sanctions are the latest attempt by the Trump administration to blatantly interfere with independent justice.
[image or embed]
— Human Rights Watch (@hrw.org) December 18, 2025 at 12:01 PM
Amnesty International's Center for International Justice lamented that "once again, the US administration is attacking international justice—sanctioning two ICC judges. This cannot be normalized."
"States must firmly oppose US threats and sanctions and uphold the court’s ability to pursue accountability," the group added, "even against the most powerful perpetrators."Keep ReadingShow Less
Rights Group Condemns 'Terror' and 'Lawlessness' Spread by Trump's Masked Thugs
“Allowing masked, unidentified agents to roam communities and apprehend people without identifying themselves erodes trusts in the rule of law and creates a dangerous vacuum where abuses can flourish."
Dec 18, 2025
As masked government agents—an oft-employed terror tool of authoritarian regimes—run roughshod amid the Trump administration's mass deportation effort, a leading human rights group on Thursday called on Congress to investigate abuses perpetrated by federal officers against immigrants and US citizens alike.
Federal immigration enforcement agents "now commonly operate masked and without visible identification, compounding the abusive and unaccountable nature of the Trump administration’s mass deportation campaign," Human Rights Watch (HRW) said. "The indefinite and widespread nature of these practices is fundamentally inconsistent with the United States’ obligations to ensure that law enforcement abuses are investigated and met with accountability."
HRW continued:
Since President Donald Trump’s return to office in January 2025, his administration has carried out an abusive campaign of immigration raids and arrests, primarily of people of color, across the country. Many of the raids target places where Latino people work, shop, eat, and live. The agents have seized people in courthouses and at regularly scheduled appointments with immigration officials, as well as in places of worship, schools, and other sensitive locations. Many raids have been marked by the sudden and unprovoked use of force without any justification, creating a climate of fear in many immigrant communities.
Drawing upon interviews with 18 people who were arrested or witnessed arrests by unidentified federal agents, HRW highlighted the "terror" and helplessness felt by victims of such "lawlessness."
“It was a horrible feeling,” said Rümeysa Öztürk, a Turkish PhD student at Tufts University who was illegally snatched off a Massachusetts street in March and whisked off to an US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) lockup in Louisiana after she published an opinion piece in a student newspaper advocating divestment from apartheid Israel as it waged a genocidal war on Gaza. With Öztürk having committed no crime, a federal judge ordered her release 45 days later.
“I didn’t think that they were the police because I had never seen police approach and take someone away like this," Öztürk said of her arrest—which bystanders likened to a kidnapping. "I thought they were people who were doxing me, and I was genuinely very afraid for my safety... As a woman who’s traveled and lived alone in various countries for my studies, I’ve never experienced intense fear for my safety—until that moment.”
Operatives with ICE—part of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS)—and other agencies have violently attacked not only unauthorized immigrants but also members of their communities including US citizens, activists, journalists, and others. The agents are often wearing masks but not badges or other identifiers, making it very difficult to hold abusers accountable.
While ICE tries to justify its widespread practice of masking agents “to prevent doxing,” HRW stressed that "this kind of generalized, blanket justification for concealing officers’ identity is not compatible with US human rights obligations, except when necessary and proportionate to address particular safety concerns."
"Anonymity also weakens deterrence, fosters conditions for impunity, and chills the exercise of rights," the group added.
It also sows terror, as Republican-appointed US District Judge William Young noted in a ruling earlier this year: "ICE goes masked for a single reason—to terrorize Americans into quiescence. Small wonder ICE often seems to need our respected military to guard them as they go about implementing our immigration laws. It should be noted that our troops do not ordinarily wear masks. Can you imagine a masked marine? It is a matter of honor—and honor still matters."
HRW also noted that "in recent months, media outlets have reported on people posing as federal agents kidnapping, sexually assaulting, and extorting victims, exploiting fears of immigration enforcement."
“Allowing masked, unidentified agents to roam communities and apprehend people without identifying themselves erodes trusts in the rule of law and creates a dangerous vacuum where abuses can flourish, exacerbating the unnecessary violence and brutality of the arrests,” HRW associate crisis and conflict director Belkis Wille said in a statement Thursday.
HRW called on Congress to "investigate the brutality of the ongoing immigration enforcement activities, including the specific impacts of unidentifiable agents carrying out stops and arrests on impeding investigations and accountability efforts."
In addition to efforts by state legislatures to unmask federal agents, congressional Democrats have demanded ICE and other officers identify themselves, and have introduced legislation—the No Secret Police Act and No Masks for ICE Act in the House and VISIBLE Act in the Senate—that would compel them to do so.
“If you uphold the peace of a democratic society, you should not be anonymous,” No Secret Police Act lead co-sponsor Rep. Adriano Espaillat (D-NY) said at the time of the bill's introduction in June. “DHS and ICE agents wearing masks and hiding identification echoes the tactics of secret police authoritarian regimes—and deviates from the practices of local law enforcement, which contributes to confusion in communities.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
Poland to Weaken Global Treaty by Making Landmines for Eastern Border and Possibly Ukraine
Condemning the plans, Humanity & Inclusion said antipersonnel mines "render land unusable for agriculture, block access to essential services, and cause casualties decades after conflicts end."
Dec 18, 2025
Just a couple of weeks after the annual Landmine Monitor highlighted rising global casualties from explosive remnants of war, Reuters reported Wednesday that Poland plans to start producing antipersonnel landmines, deploy them along its eastern border, and possibly export them to Ukraine, which is fighting a Russian invasion.
As both the International Campaign to Ban Landmines (ICBL) monitor and Reuters noted, Poland is among multiple state parties in the process of ditching the Mine Ban Treaty. Citing the Polish Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the news agency reported that "antipersonnel mine production could begin once the treaty's six‑month withdrawal period is completed on February 20, 2026."
Asked about the prospect of Poland producing the mines as soon as it leaves the convention—also called the Ottawa Treaty—Polish Deputy Defense Minister Paweł Zalewski told Reuters: "I would very much like that... We have such needs."
"We are interested in large quantities as soon as possible," Zalewski said. He added that "our starting point is our own needs. But for us, Ukraine is absolutely a priority because the European and Polish security line is on the Russia-Ukraine front."
Notes from Poland pointed out on social media Thursday that the mine plans come amid other developments in Poland's East Shield operation. As the Kraków-based outlet detailed Sunday, "Germany will send soldiers to Poland next year to support its neighbor's efforts to strengthen its borders with Russia and Belarus, which are also NATO and the European Union's eastern flank."
Humanity & Inclusion (HI), a group launched in 1982 by a pair of doctors helping Cambodian refugees affected by landmines, said in a statement to Common Dreams that it "strongly condemns Poland's decision to resume production of antipersonnel mines as soon as its withdrawal from the Ottawa Treaty becomes official in February."
HI stressed that "antipersonnel mines disproportionately harm civilians. They render land unusable for agriculture, block access to essential services, and cause casualties decades after conflicts end. Their use is devastating for civilian populations. Producing landmines is cheap, but removing them would be even more expensive and complicated."
"Plus, new production of landmines would make this weapon more available and easier to purchase," the group warned. "Such a decision normalizes a weapon that has been prohibited since 1999, when the Ottawa Treaty entered into force, and fragilizes the treaty."
"The Ottawa Treaty has been incredibly effective in protecting civilians and drying up the landmine market, a weapon that was no longer produced in Europe, and only assembled by a limited number of countries, including Russia, Iran, and North Korea, among others," HI added, citing the drop in landmine casualties since the convention entered into force.
In 1999, casualties were around 25,000 annually, according to ICBL. By 2023, they had dropped to 5,757 injured or killed. However, as the campaign revealed in its latest report at the beginning of December, there were at least 6,279 casualties in 2024—the highest yearly figure since 2020 and a 9% increase from the previous year.
In the report, ICBL outlined recent alleged mine use by not only Russia and Ukraine but also Cambodia, Iran, Myanmar, and North Korea. The group also flagged that, along with Poland, Estonia, Finland, Latvia, and Lithuania are in the process of legally withdrawing from the Ottawa Treaty, while Ukraine is trying to unlawfully "suspend the operation" of the convention during its war with Russia.
ICBL director Tamar Gabelnick said at the time that "governments must speak out to uphold the treaty, prevent further departures, reinforce its provisions globally, and ensure no more countries use, produce, or acquire antipersonnel mines."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular