Northern Dynasty: Comments on Recent Supreme Court Decision and Anticipated Next Steps

ACCESSWIRE · Northern Dynasty Minerals Ltd.

In This Article:

VANCOUVER, BC / ACCESSWIRE / January 16, 2024 / Northern Dynasty Minerals Ltd. (TSX:NDM)(NYSE American:NAK) ("Northern Dynasty" or the "Company") provides additional commentary on the recent United States Supreme Court ("Supreme Court") decision to not allow Alaska to bypass the typical court review process as it works to overturn the Environmental Protection Agency's ("EPA") illegal veto of the Pebble Project lands and comments on anticipated next steps.

Decision is Purely Procedural
It is important to note that this decision is purely procedural and does NOT imply whether the Supreme Court agrees or disagrees with the merits of the case. Alaska was pursuing a narrow exception to the usual requirement that cases first be heard by a federal district court and a federal circuit court of appeals before being considered by the Supreme Court. Based on their decision, the next logical step is to proceed with a filing in the federal district court.

Alaska Governor Responds to the Decision
Alaska Governor Mike Dunleavy issued the following statement via X (formerly known as Twitter) on Monday, January 8, 2023:

"At a time when federal administrations are fast-tracking renewable energy production, the careful production of copper and other rare minerals, like those found in the Pebble area, are more important than ever. The Supreme Court's decision to not hear the State's case directly is disappointing, but the State is confident that the lower courts will find EPA violated the law with its prohibition and restriction of any mining activity over the 309-square mile area surrounding the Pebble deposit. The State will continue to fight against this flagrant overreach."

Next Step is Federal District Court
While the request by Alaska to the Supreme Court was pending a decision, the Company has been completing the necessary steps to initiate its case in federal district court. The complaint will argue that the veto is illegal (i.e., contrary to several federal statutes) and that it is arbitrary and capricious (i.e., that it is contrary to the factual record upon which it must rest). Essentially, the case will argue that this was a political veto by this administration which is inconsistent with the findings of the Final Environmental Impact Statement recorded on the Federal Registry in July 2020 by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. These inconsistencies were set out in numerous instances by the Review Officer, in her Remand Order at the conclusion to our appeal of the negative Record of Decision. The Company will provide more details on its case when it is filed, which is expected in the coming weeks.