Inola smelter fight widens in federal court

Now, the case has moved to federal court. The US government has also taken an explicit national security position in support of the project.

The result is not a cleaner path to construction as the litigation has gained more moving parts.

Century Aluminum and EGA still have a permitting process to finish. Meanwhile, the court must decide where the lawsuit belongs and whether it should proceed at all.

Federal court changes the Inola smelter case

Drummond filed the case on behalf of the State of Oklahoma in Rogers County District Court on June 2. The state alleges the proposed smelter would create an anticipatory public nuisance and threaten pollution under Oklahoma law. It seeks temporary and permanent injunctive relief against construction and operation of the facility.

Aluminum Oklahoma is the corporate entity behind the project dubbed Oklahoma Primary Aluminum, the name used for the Inola smelter joint venture entity.

The state of Oklahoma filed a motion July 23 to send it back to state court. The forum fight has since become one of the case’s main procedural questions. Drummond’s office said the claims arise under Oklahoma law. It argued the defendants lacked a reasonable basis to remove the case. The state also asked the court to award its costs and attorney fees tied to the removal.

Century and Aluminum Oklahoma see the case differently. They argue that the relief the state seeks necessarily brings federal law into the dispute. The Aug. 31 joint status report filed by the entities says both sides agree jurisdiction normally should come first. Other pending motions remain behind it.

That still leaves the court with several possible paths.

The state of Oklahoma wants its remand motion decided first. In practical terms, the state is asking the federal judge to send the lawsuit back to Rogers County District Court because Oklahoma argues the case belongs in state court.

If the case stays in federal court, Century and Aluminum Oklahoma want the court to resolve their motion to dismiss or stay. A dismissal would end the current case in federal court, although DOJ has argued for dismissal without prejudice. A dismissal “without prejudice” means the dismissal would not decide the underlying claims on their merits, which could allow the state of Oklahoma to file again later.

Here’s what both sides are asking. Century and Aluminum Oklahoma want the court to address that request before Oklahoma’s motion for a preliminary injunction. The state of Oklahoma wants a preliminary injunction, a temporary court order that would restrict construction while the broader lawsuit remains unresolved.

In other words, the court could first decide where the case belongs, then whether it should continue at all. And only after that, address the state of Oklahoma’s request to restrict construction while the case proceeds.

That sequence of events alone could take time.

Century and Aluminum Oklahoma requested a settlement conference after Jan. 11, 2027, if the case reaches that stage. A settlement conference would mean a court-facilitated attempt to resolve the dispute without going through the entire litigation process.

Washington takes a side in smelter case

The federal government made the scope even wider.

The Justice Department filed a statement of interest Aug. 27. It asked the court to dismiss the state’s petition under the doctrine of primary jurisdiction. As an alternative, the DOJ wants the court to stay the case. The DOJ wants Oklahoma environmental regulators to act on the pending Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) permit first.

The DOJ also asked the court to deny Oklahoma’s preliminary injunction request. The filing says the project directly affects US economic and national security. It states that the United States supports construction and operation of the smelter.

Federal support technically predates the court filing. The Department of Energy awarded Century $500 million for the project in January 2025. The filing also says the Department of Defense has been actively involved.

Additionally, Century CEO Jesse Gary noted on the Aug. 6 earnings call the company expects the project to qualify for a reduced tariff program for companies adding US primary aluminum capacity. Gary said Century expects its share to cover up to 300,000 metric tons of annual imports at a 25% tariff beginning in 2027.

The election changed the political path

The federal intervention arrived two days after Oklahoma Republicans made their own decision on the project’s political future.

Mike Mazzei defeated Drummond, the Oklahoma attorney general that filed the lawsuit, in the Aug. 25 Republican gubernatorial runoff by about 2,000 votes. The smelter had become an explicit campaign issue. President Donald Trump backed Mazzei.

Mazzei now enters the Nov. 3 general election with the Republican nomination in a state where the party has held the governor’s office since 2011.

Past results don’t decide November. Still, the recent record makes the Republican nomination especially consequential for a project that has become part of the governor’s race. Moreover, Drummond remains the attorney general.

Permitting no longer means no site work

Permitting had already limited the smelter’s schedule before Drummond sued.

CEO Gary said Century could bring the smelter online sooner if permitting moved faster. He maintains Century is still expected to make a final investment decision, with construction starting by the end of the year.

The DOJ’s Aug. 27 filing used the pending PSD permit to argue against immediate court intervention. It said construction could not begin before the Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ) issued the permit.

Century and Aluminum Oklahoma’s Aug. 31 joint status report committed not to begin construction of regulated “emissions units” before ODEQ issues the permit. Yet, they expressly reserved the ability to proceed with other work, including moving earth and infrastructure work.

So the dispute is no longer simply about whether emissions can occur before a permit. The court may also have to decide how much physical development can proceed while the permit and lawsuit remain unresolved.

Final thoughts

The political component hasn’t faded. If anything, its moved outward.

In June, the case could still be viewed largely through Oklahoma politics, when Drummond was running for governor. Subsequently, the Inola Town Council officials imposed a 60-day moratorium schedule to run into late August.

A project supporter now holds the Republican nomination, and Oklahoma’s recent elector history gives that development weight. Nonetheless, the legal fight Drummond started survived the runoff defeat.

Meanwhile, the move to federal court brought a second political center into the case. The Trump administration has now told a federal judge the smelter serves US national security.

A permitting dispute running alongside a jurisdiction challenge doesn’t bode well for a fast legal resolution.

Som the lawsuit has become more complicated than the state court case AMU was watching in June.

None of those clocks necessarily stops the project. The question is how long each one takes to run.