Legislature passed 2018 critical infrastructure amendment at behest of oil and gas industry to restrict pipeline protests, plaintiffs say

February 24, 2025, New Orleans – Today before the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, environmental justice advocates and private landowners challenged the constitutionality of a law that the state has used to arrest environmental activists. Drafted by the Louisiana Mid-Continent Oil and Gas Association, the 2018 measure – an amendment to the state’s Critical Infrastructure Law – makes it a felony punishable by up to five years in prison to be on or near any of the state’s 125,000 miles of pipelines without permission. 

Passed in the wake of high-profile pipeline protests in various states, the amendment ballooned the scope of Louisiana’s Critical Infrastructure Law, which previously applied only to enclosed facilities. The plaintiffs filed suit in 2019, saying the law is unconstitutionally overbroad and vague because, given that the pipelines are ubiquitous and often underground or unmarked, it is impossible to know when one is trespassing. The law also targets environmental justice activists due to their views, in violation of the First Amendment, the lawsuit says. The plaintiffs include environmental activists and a journalist arrested for trespassing even though they had permission from the landowners to be on their land. The landowners also joined the suit. 

“This case isn’t just about Louisiana,” said Anne White Hat, a Sicangu, Lakota Water Protector based in Louisiana and the lead plaintiff in the case. “It’s part of a nationwide crackdown on environmental activism, pushed by oil and gas interests to silence resistance. But the people are standing strong. Because protecting land, water, and the right to protest is a fight we can’t afford to lose.”

In April 2024, the district court dismissed the lawsuit, determining that the amendment applied only to private property and therefore does not raise First Amendment or due process concerns. Attorney General Elizabeth Murrill, one of the defendants, subsequently changed her position to align with the court’s, contending that it did not cover public land. 

In today’s oral argument, the plaintiffs’ lawyers from the Center for Constitutional Rights argued that this reading of the law is highly implausible, defying the clear meaning of the text, which, as written, reflects the lawmakers’ intent to restrict speech across all the pipelines, including those running through public land. 

“This law transforms virtually the entire state of Louisiana into an invisible critical infrastructure where, at the whim of law enforcement or even a pipeline corporation, you can face five years in prison for just standing in the wrong place,” said Astha Sharma Pokharel, staff attorney at the Center for Constitutional Rights. “This is dangerous to everyone, and especially to those who want to exercise their First Amendment rights to oppose pipelines.”

Even if the appeals court agrees that the law applies only to private property, the vague and overbroad language remains, and with it a potential chilling effect, the plaintiffs’ lawyers say. Furthermore, they say, such a reading of the law does not do away with First Amendment concerns, because it still infringes on the rights of landowners and those who have permission to protest on private land. 

“This case is more important than ever now, as powerful interests in the gas and oil industry are no doubt emboldened by this country's current leadership and its disdain for the constitutional rights of American citizens,” said landowner Peter Aaslestad. “This law puts more power in the hands of out-of-state corporations that have repeatedly demonstrated complete disregard for the health, safety, and wellbeing of the people of Louisiana and of the land itself. To them, the Atchafalaya basin and its people are clearly worthless.”

The plaintiffs seek both declaratory and injunctive relief. In addition to White Hat and Aaslestad, they include Ramon Mejia, Harry Joseph, Karen Savage, John Lambertson for Katherine Aaslestad, Theda Larson Wright, Alberta Larson Stevens, Judith Larson Hernandez, Sharon Lavigne and Rise St. James, 350 New Orleans, and Louisiana Bucket Brigade. The defendants, with Murrill, are 16th Judicial District Attorney Bofill Duhe, and Sheriff of St. Martin Parish Becket Breaux. The plaintiffs are also represented by local counsel Bill Quigley. 

For more information on the case, visit the Center for Constitutional Rights case page.

For more information on the organizations, visit their websites: 350 New Orleans, Louisiana Bucket Brigade, and Rise St. James.