July, 13 2021, 10:08am EDT
Bayou Bridge Pipeline Protesters, Journalist Celebrate Victory for Free Speech
Local district attorney rejects all criminal charges for alleged violations of ALEC-inspired anti-protest amendments to critical infrastructure law.
WASHINGTON
Sixteen pipeline protesters and a journalist who had been arrested and charged with felonies in 2018 celebrated a major victory for the First Amendment after a local district attorney in Louisiana rejected all charges and vowed not to prosecute them under Louisiana's controversial amendments to its critical infrastructure law.
In 2018, in the midst of fierce opposition to the Bayou Bridge Pipeline and at the urging of the Louisiana Mid-Continent Oil and Gas Association, the Louisiana legislature added pipelines to the definition of critical infrastructure to significantly heighten the penalties for people protesting pipeline projects. The amendments made it a felony punishable by up to five years in prison, with or without hard labor, for being on or near pipelines or construction sites allegedly without permission. The Bayou Bridge Pipeline, built by Energy Transfer Partners, is the tail end of the same network of pipelines that includes the Dakota Access Pipeline.
Louisiana has over 125,000 miles of pipelines, most of which are underground and not visible. Three of the people arrested and charged under the law have brought a case challenging its constitutionality. In White Hat v. Landry, attorneys for the protesters and the journalist have argued that the law is unconstitutional because it is so vague that it violates due process, as well as the First Amendment. A federal judge in Louisiana recently denied motions by the local sheriff and district attorney seeking to have the case dismissed. Some of the arrests were made on property where it was later found that the pipeline company was itself trespassing. In an expropriation case brought by the pipeline company, three landowners countersued for trespass and a state appellate court agreed that the company had committed a trespass and violated their rights to due process, but it was the protesters who were charged with felonies for allegedly remaining on the same property without permission.
This critical infrastructure law is part of a national effort to crack down on environmental activists across the U.S. The first of these laws was passed in Oklahoma in 2017, creating severe penalties for interfering with pipelines and other "critical infrastructure" and "conspiring" to commit such interference. The bill's sponsor explicitly noted that the law was introduced in response to pipeline protests. In January 2018, shortly after the Oklahoma legislation was enacted, the corporate-funded, politically conservative group of state lawmakers and corporate representatives known as ALEC, or the American Legislative Exchange Council, adopted model legislation based on the Oklahoma critical infrastructure law, and has pushed for adoption of the laws in many states. Legislation aimed at pipeline protesters has been introduced more than 23 times in 18 states since 2017, and enacted in 15.
"Today, we are counting Coup on a trifecta of colonizers. Energy Transfer Partners, the American Legislative Exchange Council, and the politicians along with their police forces who viewed our powerful grassroots resistance to the Bayou Bridge Pipeline as a viable threat to their capitalist greed and waged an unjust war to silence us," said Anne White Hat, one of the people arrested and charged under the law. "Louisiana's 'critical infrastructure' law is an attempt to take away our personal freedom along with our constitutional right to protest. I stand proud of our work and am grateful for the countless allies who bravely stepped forward to support the first direct actions to stop oil and gas in the swamps of south Louisiana. Climate change will soon overcome our ability to survive unless we take action to mitigate the root cause, direct or otherwise. We will not stop our work to protect our water for future generations, and we will continue to stand for the rights of Mother Earth, who has no voice and who ultimately has the last say."
Just days after the amendments to the "critical infrastructure" law went into effect in Louisiana on August 1, 2018, three people protesting the Bayou Bridge Pipeline on navigable waters were pulled from their kayaks by law enforcement officers moonlighting for a private security company hired by Bayou Bridge Pipeline, arrested, and charged under the law. More arrests followed over the next two months. In total, 17 people, including a journalist covering the opposition to the pipeline project, were arrested and charged under the law.
"Companies like Energy Transfer Partners and the politicians that do their bidding are trying to deter us from defending our communities from the devastating impacts of new fossil fuel infrastructure," said Cindy Spoon, one of the protesters pulled from her kayak in a waterway and arrested and charged with trespassing on critical infrastructure. "They have tried to criminalize us and our actions since the Indigenous resistance at Standing Rock. In our cases specifically, Bayou Bridge employees and St. Martin Parish police officers acted unlawfully. They were willing to go as far as to break the law themselves to illegally arrest us. The refusal to prosecute us just proves what we already knew: these critical infrastructure laws are unconstitutional. We have the right to resist and we will not be deterred."
"Why is the state of Louisiana working with the extractive industry to redefine criminality in efforts to lock up community members?" asked Ramon Mejia, also arrested and charged under the law. "We all require a healthy environment that provides clean air, water, land, and well-functioning ecosystems, to thrive. Rather than halt what was illegal construction, law enforcement used their authority to arrest us and hold us in limbo for nearly three years. For many of us, who come from historically underrepresented, disproportionately impacted, communities, exercising our right to dissent is a catalyst for the advancement of our collective rights."
"The First Amendment guarantees water protectors the right to protest and protects my right as a journalist to report on those protests without fear of retribution," said Karen Savage, an independent journalist arrested while covering the events. "The DA's refusal to prosecute is further proof that this law is unconstitutional and that the arrests by the St Martin Parish Sheriff's deputies should never have happened."
"When courageous people act to protect our water and land they should be honored, not prosecuted," said Bill Quigley, one of the attorneys representing those charged. "Justice was served."
"After nearly three years with serious charges hanging over these protesters and a journalist who risked a lot to raise awareness about this controversial project, the district attorney finally did the right thing in rejecting all of them," said Pam Spees, a senior staff attorney at the Center for Constitutional Rights, also representing those charged. "It's a clear confirmation that something is seriously wrong with this law. Not only did it target people expressing their opposition to this pipeline project, the law put anyone in Louisiana at risk of running afoul of its vague and sweeping terms, regardless of their political views or feelings about pipelines."
The Center for Constitutional Rights is dedicated to advancing and protecting the rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. CCR is committed to the creative use of law as a positive force for social change.
(212) 614-6464LATEST NEWS
Experts Sound Alarm Over Trump's Promise to Let RFK Jr. 'Control' Health Agencies
"RFK Jr. is an anti-vaxxer and conspiracy theorist," said one scientist. "A Trump win will be an absolute catastrophe for public health."
Oct 30, 2024
Public health experts reacted with alarm Wednesday to reports that former President Donald Trump promised anti-vaccine conspiracy theorist Robert F. Kennedy Jr. control over federal agencies including the Department of Health and Human Services and Department of Agriculture should the Republican nominee defeat Democratic Vice President Kamala Harris in next week's election.
Speaking at last week's bigotry-laden campaign rally at Madison Square Garden in New York, Trump said that if he wins, he'll let Kennedy—who in August suspended his Independent presidential campaign and endorsed the GOP nominee—"go wild on health."
"I'm gonna let him go wild on the foods," Trump vowed. "I'm gonna let him go wild on the medicines."
In a video posted Tuesday on social media, Kennedy said that the GOP nominee promised him control of the Health and Human Services Department, Department of Agriculture, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Food and Drug Administration (FDA), National Institutes of Health, "and a few others."
Kennedy said control of these agencies "is key to making America healthy, because we've got to get off of seed oils, and we've got to get off of pesticide-intensive agriculture."
Despite his stated interest in tackling major public health issues including government corruption and Big Pharma greed, experts warned that, as Columbia University molecular biologist Lucky Tran
said earlier this week: "RFK Jr is an anti-vaxxer and conspiracy theorist. A Trump win will be an absolute catastrophe for public health."
Kennedy is arguably the world's leading proponent of anti-vaccine conspiracy theories, including that vaccines cause autism. He has mixed spurious disparagement of the safety and efficacy of vaccines, including for Covid-19, with attacks on the well-documented deadly greed of the pharmaceutical industry.
There is some ideological overlap between Trump and Kennedy—who, like the ex-president is a former Democrat—including the shared belief in defunding federal public health agencies, purging their ranks, and investigating and possibly prosecuting some of their employees.
"If you work for the FDA and are part of this corrupt system, I have two messages for you: 1. Preserve your records, and 2. Pack your bags," Kennedy recently
wrote on social media.
Keep ReadingShow Less
16 AGs Push Congress to Pass Federal Ban on Price Gouging
"During and after a crisis, it is unfair—and harmful to our economy—for companies to reap higher profits for selling goods and services that families need to survive."
Oct 30, 2024
The attorneys general of 15 states and the District of Columbia on Wednesday wrote to the top Democrats and Republicans in Congress to advocate for a federal prohibition on price gouging.
"Businesses should never be able to hike prices during an emergency just to increase their profits," said New York Attorney General Letitia James, who led the letter. "When companies take advantage of major disruptions and raise prices of food and supplies that New Yorkers rely on, my office holds them accountable, getting people their money back and protecting their wallets."
"Our federal government should have the same power to protect Americans when disaster strikes and stop price gouging at the national level that threatens both hardworking families and small businesses," asserted James, a Democrat.
The letter points out that "over 40 states across the country make price gouging unlawful, reflecting the widespread national consensus that exists, across ideological and regional differences, that in the immediate run-up to and aftermath of a crisis, it is unfair—and harmful to our economy long-term—to reap higher profits for selling goods and services people need to survive."
"As crises, whether natural or human in origin, become more common... now is the time to work constructively in a bipartisan fashion to create federal price gouging protections."
"Despite that consensus, there is currently no federal price gouging prohibition—and individual states face heightened challenges when protecting consumers from price gouging when so many product supply chains are nationwide," it continues. "A federal price gouging prohibition would provide critical partnership to state enforcement and protect consumers and small businesses alike."
The letter—addressed to House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) and Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) as well as Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.)—lays out how price gouging bans address market failures and strengthen the economy, explaining that "they act like 'circuit breakers' in a stock market: They put a pause on panic-driven price changes and give everyone a chance to make sure they are making the right pricing choices for the long-term."
Price gouging prohibitions also "prevent inefficient pricing overreactions in the heat of a crisis" and "help to prevent hoarding," the letter adds. Further, they "can restrain inefficiently high prices for products where there is very little competition."
"A federal price gouging prohibition that complemented state prohibitions would allow federal enforcement agencies, such as the Federal Trade Commission, to identify and restrain unjustified and irrational price increases throughout the entire supply chain, unconstrained by the complications of state-by-state enforcement," the attorneys general wrote. "Such a prohibition should not preempt state laws, but complement and strengthen them by focusing federal enforcement on price gouging that cannot practicably be stopped by a single state."
"Our states provide many different models for how such a price gouging statute might be framed," the coalition noted. "But as crises, whether natural or human in origin, become more common and the cost of living continues to be too high for working families, we believe now is the time to work constructively in a bipartisan fashion to create federal price gouging protections to complement price gouging protections that already exist in almost every state."
In addition to the D.C. attorney general, James was joined by the AGs in Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Oregon, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Pennsylvania, and Vermont.
"During and after a crisis, it is unfair—and harmful to our economy—for companies to reap higher profits for selling goods and services that families need to survive," said California Attorney General Rob Bonta. "That is why California's price gouging law protects Californians during and after wildfires, severe weather storms, and other emergencies."
"A federal price gouging prohibition that complements state law would build on successful partnerships between states and the federal government to protect consumers by making it easier to enforce price gouging prohibitions nationally, up the supply chain," the Democrat added. "This would benefit California consumers and small businesses who currently bear the brunt of their suppliers' price setting."
The letter comes amid a fossil fuel-driven climate emergency featuring extreme weather that is increasingly impacting U.S. communities and less than a week away from Election Day, when Americans will choose the next Congress and President. In the race for the White House, former Republican President Donald Trump faces Democratic Vice President Kamala Harris. In August, the Democrat proposed a federal ban on price gouging by food supplies and grocery stores.
"I still remember our mother sitting at that yellow formica table late at night, cup of tea in hand, a pile of bills in front of her, trying to make it all work. And I've heard from so many of you who are facing even greater financial pressures," Harris said in a Tuesday campaign speech. "I will enact the first-ever federal ban on price gouging on groceries, cap the price of insulin, and limit out-of-pocket prescription costs for all Americans. I will fight to make sure that hardworking Americans can actually afford a place to live."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Low-Wage Workers Endorse Slate of Candidates to Win Fairer Economy
One Fair Wage Action is endorsing 25 national and state candidates who are "committed to raising the minimum wage and ending the federal subminimum wage of just $2.13 an hour."
Oct 30, 2024
A U.S. advocacy group fighting for a living wage for its hundreds of thousands of service industry employee members on Wednesday announced its endorsement of a slate of "pro-worker candidates" in next week's elections.
One Fair Wage (OFW) Action—whose members include more than 300,000 U.S. restaurant workers, owners, and other service industry employees—said following its recent endorsement of U.S. Vice President Kamala Harris that "these candidates—from Arizona to Michigan to New York—are committed to raising the minimum wage and ending the federal subminimum wage of just $2.13 an hour, a poverty-level wage that leaves tipped and service workers struggling in one of the nation's fastest-growing, yet lowest-paid sectors."
"These candidates understand the need to challenge corporate interests that have long held back meaningful wage reform."
"As families across the nation struggle with rising costs, One Fair Wage Action's coalition of over 300,000 service workers, employers, and allies are mobilizing to amplify the call for living wages," the group continued. "In key battleground states like Michigan and Pennsylvania, the organization will focus on reaching voters who are demanding economic justice and solutions to the cost-of-living crisis."
OFW Action endorsed Democratic candidates including:
- Arizona: Ruben Gallego (U.S. Senate); Junelle Cavero and Oscar De Los Santos (U.S. House); and Mariana Sandoval (state Legislature);
- California: Rose Penelope Yee, Lateefah Simon, Laura Friedman, Rudy Salas, Jimmy Gomez, David Kim, and Stephen Houlahan (U.S. House);
- Illinois: Nikki Budzinski and Lauren Underwood (U.S. House);
- Massachusetts: Leigh Davis and Natalie Higgins (state Legislature);
- Michigan: Elissa Slotkin (U.S. Senate) and Carl Marlinga (U.S. House);
- Nevada: Steven Horsford (U.S. House);
- New York: Adriano Espaillat, John Avlon, Rob Lubin, Grace Meng, Andrea Morse, and John Mannion (U.S. House); and
- Wisconsin: Rebecca Cooke (U.S. House).
"These candidates understand the need to challenge corporate interests that have long held back meaningful wage reform," OFW Action president Saru Jayaraman said Wednesday "For years, powerful lobbying groups have fought to preserve the subminimum wage for tipped workers at just $2.13 an hour, forcing millions of tipped and service workers, who are overwhelmingly women and people of color, to suffer from the highest rates of economic instability and sexual harassment of any industry."
"These candidates are committed to putting a stop to this practice and ensuring that every worker is paid fairly and with dignity," she asserted. "By electing leaders who prioritize fair wages over corporate profits, we can finally create an economy that values the contributions of all workers—not just those at the top."
Last month, OFW applauded Harris for backing an end to the subminimum wage for tipped workers, arguing the policy stands in stark contrast with the platform of former President Donald Trump, the Republican nominee, whose scheme to end taxes on tipped employees has been panned by experts as potentially harmful to the workers it purports to help.
"For too long, well-funded interests have blocked progress on fair wages," Jayaraman added. "These candidates bring a commitment to meaningful change from within the system. They understand the urgent need to address the imbalance that keeps so many workers struggling to make ends meet. One Fair Wage Action is mobilizing to ensure that these voices are heard, so that workers themselves drive this change at the polls."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular