The Justice Department announced a final settlement with the state of North Dakota in the case of North Dakota v. United States, resolving litigation stemming from the violent and disruptive protests surrounding the Dakota Access Pipeline in 2016.
While the federal government disputed the district court’s legal analysis of North Dakota’s claims and its own defenses under the Federal Tort Claims Act, the Justice Department acknowledged that the Obama Administration could have done more to reduce the impact on North Dakota residents from protests that at times escalated into unlawfulness and confrontational violence.
The settlement was reached in the hope that all parties affected by the turmoil of the DAPL protests could move forward with some degree of closure, while allowing the federal government and North Dakota to continue working cooperatively going forward.
The Justice Department’s announcement drew a sharp distinction between constitutionally protected speech and the conduct that took place during the height of the protests in the summer and fall of 2016. Protestors established unauthorized encampments on federal property, burned vehicles, destroyed private property, shut down public roadways and clashed repeatedly with local law enforcement — conduct the department characterized as unlawful and not protected under the First Amendment.
At the time, the federal government chose not to forcibly remove protestors from the encampments in an effort to avoid further escalation. The Justice Department acknowledged that decision carried painful consequences for North Dakota and many of its residents.
The Trump Administration used the settlement announcement to draw a contrast with its predecessor’s handling of civil unrest, stating it remains committed to protecting citizens from what it described as lawlessness and violence carried out under the guise of peaceful protest.