Connect with us

Wisconsin

DOJ weighs in on Line 5 trespass on tribal land in Wisconsin

Published

on

DOJ weighs in on Line 5 trespass on tribal land in Wisconsin



Federal government finds trespass is illegal, makes no move to remove pipeline

UPPER PENINSULA — The Enbridge Line 5 pipeline has been found to be illegally trespassing on tribal land in Wisconsin, but will not be moved any time soon.

After years of court arguments, lawsuits and delays, the federal government announced this week that Enbridge is in fact trespassing on land owned by the Bad River Band of Lake Superior Chippewa, but made no move to force the pipeline off the land.

Tribal groups in the Great Lakes region expressed relief that Enbridge’s trespassing is being viewed as a crime after more than 10 years, but are still angry that no move is being made to remove the pipeline.

Advertisement

The Department of Justice announcement urged the courts to penalize Enbridge for its continued trespassing but also suggested the courts could allow Enbridge to continue trespassing illegally.

“Today, the United States agreed that Enbridge’s ongoing occupation of our land is illegal. We are grateful the U.S. urged the court not to let Enbridge profit from its unlawful trespass,” said Bad River Band Chairman Robert Blanchard in a statement. “But we are disappointed that the U.S. has not unequivocally called for an immediate end to Enbridge’s ongoing trespass, as justice and the law demand. Enbridge should be required to promptly leave our reservation, just like other companies that have trespassed on tribal land. We are hopeful that the appeals court will put an end to Enbridge’s shameful decade of trespass and not condone its exploitation of our land and sovereign rights.”

Built in 1953, Enbridge Energy’s Line 5 spans 645 miles from Superior, Wisconsin to Sarnia, Ontario. The line transports light crude oil and natural gas liquids. Four miles of the pipeline — consisting of two, 20-inch pipelines — crosses through the Straits of Mackinac. 

Line 5’s continued presence in the Straits of Mackinac has sparked serious concern from environmental groups and other advocates about the devastating risk of rupture. On the other side, proponents of the pipeline point to the economic impact and need for fuel transportation.

Advertisement

More: As legal sparring continues, Army Corps pushes Line 5 permit timeline to 2025

All 12 of Michigan’s federally recognized tribes, as well as tribes in Wisconsin, Minnesota and Canada, have passed resolutions calling for the decommissioning of Line 5.

While tribal communities express concerns about a possible oil spill and potential ecological harm, the Great Lakes are also significant in the creation stories of the Anishinaabe tribes.

On March 21, Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel delivered oral arguments at the Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in an attempt to bring the Line 5 decommission lawsuit back to the state of Michigan.

Advertisement

The Nessel vs. Enbridge lawsuit was originally filed in 2019 in Michigan, arguing that the 1836 Treaty of Washington guarantees these tribes the right to maintain their way of life in the ceded territory — a right, they claim, that will be destroyed if an oil spill from the pipeline contaminates the waters.

“We expect a fair trial that upholds the promises the United States government made to our ancestors,” said Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians Chairman Austin Lowes. “We are going to present the facts behind our case and will never stop standing up for our rights as Indigenous people and the sovereignty of our nation.”

Enbridge has successfully delayed the case multiple times and had it removed from state to federal court.

“If the United States supports Enbridge, it would destroy not only both tribal sovereignty but also state sovereignty with respect to the ability to manage land, resources and water for their citizens,” said Bay Mills Indian Community President Whitney Gravelle.

Lowes added that “Our treaty with the United States government predates any treaty that Enbridge is using in an attempt to justify its illegal pipeline operations.”

Advertisement

“Our case isn’t just about whether Enbridge can continue operating Line 5, but it could impact every federally recognized tribe’s right to control what happens on their land,” he said.

The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals requested federal input in December 2023. After this, in early March, leaders of 30 Tribal Nations in the Great Lakes region sent a letter to President Joe Biden urging the United States to take action against Line 5’s trespass on the Bad River Band’s sovereign territories.

The Biden Administration has not responded to either request.

Subscribe: Get unlimited access to our coverage

Advertisement

More than 60 Tribal Nations supported Nessel in a motion to bring the case back to state court. The arguments for keeping the case in federal court or moving it back to state court were heard during the March 21 hearings at the Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in Cincinnati.

Nessel maintains that this case belongs in state court based on Michigan’s sovereign responsibility to protect the public trust in the waters of the Great Lakes. She argued to the court that taking the case out of state court because Enbridge prefers a federal forum violates Michigan’s right to have state claims resolved in state court.

“The case law regarding a Tribal Nation’s sovereign right to maintain their homelands and thus their reservations is a core aspect of tribal sovereignty and any position to the contrary would be unexpected and shocking,” said Gravelle.

Assistant Attorney General Dan Bock argued to the Sixth Circuit that by waiting more than two years to move the case to federal court, Enbridge’s removal was untimely and must be rejected. Bock also argued that, timing issues aside, the federal court misapplied the law when it ruled that the case belongs in federal court rather than state court.

Advertisement

Enbridge’s attorney Alice Loughran argued that the removal to federal court was timely, and it should remain in federal court because federal issues dominate the case. Those issues include the impact of the 1977 U.S.-Canada transnational pipelines treaty, the federal Submerged Lands Act and the extensive federal regulation of oil pipelines.

Enbridge argued that the state’s rights to protect the waters of the Great Lakes and the company’s right to protect commerce profits are federal issues.

The arguments were presented to a three-judge panel of the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeal: Judges Richard Griffin, Amul Thapar and John Nalbandian.

On April 9, the Department of Justice weighed in on the appeal and came to a final decision that Enbridge is illegally trespassing. Though it acknowledges the trespassing, it does not call for immediate removal and even suggested the courts could allow the trespassing to continue indefinitely.

Many tribal groups spoke out about the dangers of such a decision, as it continues to threaten both environmental safety in the area and tribal sovereignty.

Advertisement

“The filing leaves more questions than answers. It also leaves Bad River, other Tribal Nations throughout the region, and the 40 million people that rely on the Great Lakes at risk of a catastrophic spill. We fear it will take Line 5 failing again, and the disaster of an oil spill for our position to be taken seriously. This isn’t just about tribes, it is about clean water, it is about life. It is about every U.S. citizen and preserving our natural resources for generations to come,” said Gravelle.

Requests for comment from Enbridge were not returned.

— Contact Brendan Wiesner: BWiesner@Sooeveningnews.com



Source link

Advertisement

Wisconsin

WATCH: Teen ‘takeover’ turns violent as fights break out, arrests follow chaos at Wisconsin mall | Fox News Video

Published

on

WATCH: Teen ‘takeover’ turns violent as fights break out, arrests follow chaos at Wisconsin mall | Fox News Video


Video shows the moment a brawl reportedly broke out outside a Kohl’s at the Bayshore Mall during an unsanctioned teen “takeover” event in Glendale, Wisconsin on Sunday, March 29, 2026 . (Credit: @milwaukeereports via Storyful)



Source link

Continue Reading

Wisconsin

Where Wisconsin men’s basketball 2026-27 roster stands before transfer portal

Published

on

Where Wisconsin men’s basketball 2026-27 roster stands before transfer portal


play

  • Four senior guards have exhausted their eligibility, creating a void in the team’s backcourt.
  • Two forwards have announced their intention to enter the transfer portal, though the frontcourt could retain some key players.
  • The Badgers appear to have five open roster spots to fill at this point in the roster management process.

With eight newcomers (or nine until one preseason dismissal), the Wisconsin men’s basketball roster for 2025-26 looked much different from its 2024-25 roster.

Now with the 2025-26 season in the rearview mirror, early indications point toward the 2026-27 roster again looking much different from this season’s.

Advertisement

Wisconsin is losing four seniors and two players who intend to transfer and already had one open roster spot. With more than a week before the transfer portal opens April 7, that means the Badgers could have at least seven newcomers on a 2026-27 roster that is capped at 15 players.

Here is a look at where the roster stands at this point in the reconstruction process:

Wisconsin’s guards

Exhausted eligibility: Nick Boyd, Andrew Rohde, Braeden Carrington, Isaac Gard

Intending to transfer: No announcements yet

Advertisement

Has ability to return: John Blackwell, Jack Janicki, Zach Kinziger, Hayden Jones

Incoming freshmen: LaTrevion Fenderson, Jackson Ball

The Badgers will have a much different backcourt as they replace starting guards Boyd and Rohde and key reserve Carrington. The big question is whether they can retain Blackwell, who said he did not know his plans in the immediate aftermath of the March Madness loss.

Boyd, Rohde and Carrington’s departures already account for a loss of about 41% of the team’s scoring and 51% of the team’s assists from the 2025-26 season. Losing Blackwell too would swell those numbers to 64% of the team’s scoring lost and 65% of the team’s assists lost.

Janicki removed any doubt about his status when he said after the loss to High Point that he plans to return to the Badgers. Aside from Blackwell, he is the only other UW guard with the ability to come back who averaged at least 10 minutes per game this season.

Advertisement

Wisconsin’s forwards

Exhausted eligibility: None

Intending to transfer: Jack Robison, Riccardo Greppi

Has ability to return: Nolan Winter, Austin Rapp, Aleksas Bieliauskas, Will Garlock

For as much change as Wisconsin’s backcourt is experiencing, the frontcourt has the potential to have a similar composition in 2026-27.

Advertisement

Winter, Rapp, Bieliauskas and Garlock were the four players who each played in at least 30 of UW’s 35 games, and each player has the option to return. Rapp indicated after the High Point loss that he “100%” plans on returning, and Winter wanted to “live minute-by-minute and soak this all in” when he faced questions about his future.

Robison and Greppi, the first two UW players to signal their intention to enter the transfer portal, were on the floor for 31 and 19 minutes in 2025-26, respectively. Those were the two lowest minute totals among scholarship players. With Daniel Freitag transferring last year and Robison and Greppi transferring this year, UW’s entire 2024 high school recruiting class will be playing elsewhere.

When could Wisconsin’s transfer portal activity pick up?

The men’s college basketball transfer portal window will open April 7 and last through April 21. As already evident with Robison and Greppi, though, it is often in athletes’ best interests to announce their intention to transfer before the portal officially opens.

The 15-day window dictates when a player can enter the portal (with a few exceptions), but players do not necessarily need to commit to their new school during that time.

Advertisement

UW appears to have five open roster spots when taking into account players intending to depart and recruits joining the program as freshmen. General manager Marc VandeWettering has long strategized UW’s roster reconstruction efforts for the 2026 offseason, and athletes’ agents may have been thinking ahead as well.

“We’d be naive to think that agents aren’t trying to figure out the markets for people,” VandeWettering told the Journal Sentinel in a late-February conversation, “whether that means they’re actually shopping somebody or just trying to figure out what numbers should look like.”



Source link

Continue Reading

Wisconsin

What Wisconsin men’s basketball needs to target in the transfer portal this offseason

Published

on

What Wisconsin men’s basketball needs to target in the transfer portal this offseason


Wisconsin Badgers basketball players huddle during a game. Photo credit: UW Athletics.

There’s no good way to move on from a loss like the Wisconsin Badgers had in Round 1 against High Point, but in today’s college basketball landscape, you don’t really get the luxury of sitting idle for very long.

The offseason starts the moment the clock hits zero — and if we’re being honest, it typically begins well before that. And for Wisconsin’s front office, that means balancing two things at once — acknowledging the frustration of another early NCAA Tournament exit while also recognizing that this program is still operating from a position of strength.

Because both can be true.

Greg Gard and his staff built a team this year that could score with anyone in the country. That wasn’t accidental. It was a conscious shift made over the last few years as they leaned into spacing, tempo, and offensive efficiency.

Advertisement

The result? A group that averaged 83.0 points per game, the program’s highest scoring output in more than five decades, and one of the most efficient offenses Wisconsin has had in the modern era.

They knew what they were building. And they’re owning it.

But the trade-off was real, too. Defensively, this wasn’t up to the standard Wisconsin has historically set. The balance wasn’t quite there. And in March, when possessions tighten and margins shrink, that showed up.

So now the question becomes simple. How do you maintain what made you dangerous as a team — while fixing what held you back?

That’s the puzzle this offseason.

Advertisement

And it starts, as it always does now, with retention.

There’s a strong belief internally that if Wisconsin can keep the right core pieces in place, they’ll once again be in position to go out and add impact talent through the portal. This staff has earned that benefit of the doubt.

They’ve adapted to this era as well as anyone — identifying fits, developing them, and, more often than not, hitting on key additions. You don’t have to look far for proof. AJ Storr. John Tonje. Nick Boyd. It’s not hard to sell that track record to players on the open market when you can point to what those guys were able to do in this system.

And it’s why there’s confidence they can do it again. With the transfer portal officially opening on April 7, what this staff targets this time around matters — because the needs are pretty clearly defined.



Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Trending