North Dakota sues Biden for shutting down oil and gas lease sales that will cost the state tens of millions in revenue



North Dakota is suing the Biden administration over its halting of new oil and gas leases on federal land and water. The shutdown will cause significant damage to the state's economy, and North Dakota has already lost tens of millions of dollars in revenue.

The lawsuit, which was filed on Wednesday with the United States District Court for the District of North Dakota Western Division, asserts that President Joe Biden's suspension of lease sales in North Dakota is unlawful. The complaint claims the U.S. Department of the Interior and the Bureau of Land Management illegally halted oil and gas lease auctions in the state.

North Dakota's lawsuit calls on the BLM to reschedule the two lost lease sales, and would prevent the agency from blocking future sales in the state.

The lawsuit said the two canceled sales this year have cost the state more than $80 million in lost revenue. The state claimed that the canceled leases could cost the state "billions" in the coming months if the leases are not reinstated. North Dakota is the second-biggest crude oil-producing U.S. state, and a bulk of its tax revenue come from oil and gas production.

"Oil and gas production are central to North Dakota's economy and the welfare of its citizens, responsible for 54% of the value of the State's economy, generating approximately 76% of the State's tax revenue and creating approximately 66,000 good-paying jobs in the State," the complaint states.

North Dakota Attorney General Wayne Stenehjem said in a statement, "I have taken this action to protect North Dakota's economy, the jobs of our hard-working citizens, and North Dakota's rights to control its own natural resources."

"Without following the legally required procedures, [the Bureau of Land Management] arbitrarily canceled the March and June lease auctions and shows every sign of continuing to violate its statutory duties," Stenehjem's news release stated.

"In addition to being a foolish idea, President Biden's moratorium on oil and gas leasing on public lands is illegal," North Dakota Republican Sen. Kevin Cramer said in a statement. "It increases federal and state budget shortfalls, hampers state and private mineral owners' rights, and makes the United States less energy independent and more reliant on foreign producers who are not all good actors, like Russia, Saudi Arabia, or Venezuela."

The Bureau of Land Management declined to comment on the lawsuit.

Last month, a federal judge in Louisiana temporarily blocked Biden's suspension of oil and gas leasing on public land and water. The judge noted his ruling applied nationwide.

Stenehjem said, "I welcome and support the Louisiana federal district court's decision, and I look forward to defending North Dakota's vital interests in its natural resources and continuing to put the pressure on the Federal government to do the right thing for our state."

In March, a lawsuit against Biden was launched by 21 states over the president's executive order that shut down the Keystone XL pipeline. The lawsuit included North Dakota as well as Texas, Montana, Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Utah, West Virginia, and Wyoming.

Biden halted oil and gas lease sales once he entered office in January, citing climate change concerns as the reason for shutting down the leasing.

Federal court to hear Texas GOP argument to throw out 127,000 drive-thru votes



A federal judge in Texas will hear a case brought by the state Republican Party seeking to have nearly 127,000 ballots disqualified in Harris County.

The emergency hearing will take place on Monday after Republicans sued to invalidate early ballots cast at drive-thru polling stations, which they say violate the U.S. Constitution. District Court Judge Andrew Hanen will preside over the hearing, Fox News reports.

Harris County, home to the city of Houston, is a Democratic stronghold in Texas. According to the Texas Tribune, drive-thru ballots account for about 10% of all in-person early voting ballots cast in Harris County. If the federal court sides with state Republicans, nearly 127,000 people will have their votes thrown out.

The Texas Supreme Court already rejected a similar lawsuit brought by the same plaintiffs to have the votes discounted. The court did not issue an opinion explaining its decision.

Drive-thru voting in Harris County was established in July during the state primary runoff elections. Harris County set up 10 drive-thru polling locations in October where voters concerned about the coronavirus pandemic would have an opportunity to vote from their vehicles. Voters arrive in their vehicles, have their registrations and identifications confirmed by poll workers, and are given an electronic tablet through their car windows to vote.

In an emergency lawsuit, Harris County Republicans sought to have the votes dismissed, arguing the drive-thru program was an illegal expansion of curbside voting. Under Texas state law, curbside voting is reserved for voters with disabilities. They also argue the practice violates the U.S. Constitution, which gives state legislatures the power to decide how elections are run, not local governments.

"Unless stopped, illegal votes will be cast and counted in direct violation of the Texas Election Code and the United States Constitution and result in the integrity of elections in Harris County being compromised," the petition to the court said.

The Harris County Clerk's Office argues that its drive-thru polling locations are separate polling places, distinct from curbside spots, and therefore should be available to all voters.

Harris County Clerk Chris Hollins on Sunday filed a legal brief petitioning Judge Hanen to reject the GOP lawsuit.

"The Texas Supreme Court has twice declined to interfere," the brief says. "The fact that the final arbiter of the Texas Election Code found no justification for interfering with drive-through polling places—based on the same legal arguments—in the middle of the election is an unmistakable indication that the public interest is best served by allowing the election to proceed without interference."

Two Kroger workers fired after refusing to wear LGBTQ apron. Now federal watchdog is suing chain for religious discrimination.



The federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission filed a religious discrimination lawsuit against supermarket chain Kroger on behalf of two women who said the store fired them after they refused to wear aprons that included an LGBTQ symbol, ABC News reported.

What are the details?

The lawsuit claims ex-workers Brenda Lawson and Trudy Rickerd said the company implemented a policy in April 2019 that required employees to wear an apron that included a rainbow heart, which they say endorses LGBTQ values, the network said.

The women claimed wearing the symbol would violate their religious beliefs, and that they even tried to offer alternatives, ABC News said, citing the lawsuit.

Lawson, who was 72 at the time, said she offered to wear the apron with her name tag covering the emblem, but the Conway, Arkansas, store allegedly refused, the network said.

"I am requesting a reasonable accommodation of this dress code with regard to my religious belief," she wrote in a letter requesting religious accommodations, ABC News said, citing the lawsuit. "I am simply asking to wear my name badge over the heart logo."

Rickerd, who was 57 at the time, said she offered to wear a different apron without the emblem and sent a letter explaining why she felt she couldn't comply with the policy, the network reported.

"I have a sincerely held religious belief that I cannot wear a symbol that promotes or endorses something that is in violation of my religious faith," she wrote in the letter, ABC News said, citing the lawsuit. "I respect others who have a different opinion and am happy to work alongside others who desire to wear the symbol. I am happy to buy another apron to ensure there is no financial hardship on Kroger."

How did Kroger allegedly respond to the women's requests?

Kroger, the country's largest supermarket chain, allegedly denied both requests and retaliated against the women by disciplining and ultimately firing them, the network reported, citing the lawsuit.

ABC News said Teresa Dickerson, a Kroger communication representative, declined the network's request for comment and cited a standard against speaking publicly on pending litigation.

Anything else?

The network — citing the lawsuit — added that Kroger didn't fire other employees who declined to wear the new apron or covered the heart emblem without requesting religious accommodations.

The EEOC — which is in charge of enforcing anti-workplace discrimination laws — filed the suit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas on Monday, ABC News said. The federal watchdog's suit alleges conduct that violates the Title VII, a part of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that prohibits workplace discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex and national origin, the network said.

"Companies have an obligation under Title VII to consider requests for religious accommodations, and it is illegal to terminate employees for requesting an accommodation for their religious beliefs," Delner-Franklin Thomas, district director of the EEOC's Memphis District Office, said in a statement Tuesday, according to ABC News.

The suit seeks back pay and other compensatory damages as well as an injunction against future discrimination, the network said.