Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel has joined forces with counterparts in 14 other states to challenge President Donald Trump’s declaration of a “national energy emergency,” employed as a basis to fast-track fossil fuel projects.
The proposed Line 5 oil pipeline tunnel under the Straits of Mackinac in Michigan is among scores of energy projects across the country undergoing environmental permitting on a truncated timeline because of a Trump executive order issued on day one of his second term.
But the presidential action lacks any basis in fact, Nessel and 14 other attorneys general argue in a lawsuit filed Friday, May 9 seeking to block the order.
It allows federal agencies to illegally duck around regulations meant to protect the environment, safeguard endangered species and preserve historic sites, they allege in the 61-page complaint.
In the past, federal agencies have only invoked emergency permitting procedures during or after disasters like hurricanes, flooding and the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill, according to the lawsuit.
The states agree reliable and affordable energy production are of “critical importance.”
“The invocation of the nation’s emergency authorities, however, is reserved for actual emergencies — not changes in presidential policy,” the lawsuit states.
Top prosecutors in Arizona, California, Connecticut, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington and Wisconsin joined Nessel, a Democrat, in filing the suit in federal court in Washington state on Friday.
It names Trump, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation and Army officials as defendants.
The lawsuit alleges the Trump administration is illegally invoking emergency authority to keep the nation hooked on polluting energy sources like coal, oil and gas, while ignoring cheap and abundant renewable solar and wind power.
“True emergencies are disasters that directly impact residents, not fake crises to pad Big Oil’s profits,” Nessel said in a statement.
“This is just the latest in a long line of examples of President Trump illegally using his executive orders and administration to cater to his Big Oil campaign donors at the expense of our Great Lakes, our environment, and the people of Michigan.”
The lawsuit asks the court to declare the energy emergency order unlawful and stop federal officials from issuing permits on an emergency basis.
As of Monday morning, May 12, the administration had not filed a response to the lawsuit in court.
“The President of the United States has the authority to determine what is a national emergency, not state attorneys or the courts,” wrote a White House spokesperson in a statement. “President Trump recognizes that unleashing American energy is crucial to both our economic and national security.”
But Trump’s declaration of an “energy emergency” flies in the face of record U.S. oil and gas production, the states’ lawsuit claims. The U.S. has been a net energy exporter since 2019, and fossil fuel companies have said they won’t increase production in response to the order because it doesn’t make economic sense, according to the lawsuit.
The Trump executive order’s focus on energy sources like coal, oil and gas also contradicts the nation’s goal of reliable and affordable energy, it claims. That’s because burning fossil fuels supercharges climate change, prompting more extreme weather and posing a threat to the electric grid, according to the lawsuit.
The lawsuit cites efforts by federal agencies to speed up project review and circumvent requirements of laws like the Clean Water Act, Endangered Species Act and Historic National Preservation Act.
The projects include discharges of fill or dredged material into U.S. waters, according to the complaint, as well as pipeline projects crossing rivers and other waterways.
The Army Corps announced in mid-April a draft environmental impact statement for the Line 5 tunnel under the Great Lakes proposed by Canadian pipeline giant Enbridge would be published around June, ahead of a final permitting decision and on a sped-up timeline.
Six Michigan Indigenous tribes formally withdrew cooperation with the review in objection to the fast-track plans, which have been praised by Michigan Republicans.
Supporters maintain the project is needed to alleviate a threat posed by the pipeline now running exposed along the lakebed, as well as maintain energy market stability in the Midwest.
But opponents counter that the tunnel carries risk of explosion and oil leaks, and more investment in fossil fuel infrastructure is counterproductive amid a shift to clean energy.
Nessel, in addition to participating in the lawsuit against the Trump administration, remains in litigation with Enbridge over Gov. Gretchen Whitmer’s 2020 order to close the pipeline under the straits.
In January, Nessel’s office argued in court that the 1953 easement authorizing Line 5 to cross the lakebed has been invalid since its inception because it violates the public trust doctrine. Nessel also claims the pipeline’s presence violates the Michigan Environmental Protection Act and constitutes a public nuisance.
An opinion in that case from Ingham County judge is pending.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.