Home » Environment

Wild Rice Sues Minnesota: Rights of Nature Take Center Stage

A bold lawsuit from wild rice in tribal court challenges the Enbridge Line 3 pipeline and advances the rights of nature movement in North America.

By Sneha Tete, Integrated MA, Certified Relationship Coach

Created on Sep 27, 2025

A bold lawsuit from wild rice in tribal court challenges the Enbridge Line 3 pipeline and advances the rights of nature movement in North America.

Manoomin, or wild rice, is far more than a plant for the Ojibwe people—it is a sacred species deeply enmeshed in their culture, spirituality, and treaty rights. In an unprecedented legal move, wild rice became the lead plaintiff in a tribal court lawsuit against the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR), challenging water permits granted for Enbridge’s Line 3 oil pipeline. This groundbreaking case represents a convergence of the rights of nature movement, tribal sovereignty, environmental protection, and Indigenous law.

The Sacred Status of Wild Rice

For the White Earth Band of Ojibwe, wild rice is not just an environmental resource—it is a sacred being. Called manoomin, meaning “good berry,” it plays a vital role in Ojibwe creation stories and traditional lifeways. The migration legend of the Ojibwe speaks of a prophecy directing them westward until they found food growing on the water: wild rice. Since then, the species has been central to Ojibwe culture, sustenance, ceremony, and identity.

Wild rice is integral to Ojibwe spirituality, teachings, and self-governance.
The species requires clean, abundant freshwater wetland ecosystems.
Ojibwe treaty rights explicitly protect their ability to gather manoomin on traditional lands.

Why Did Wild Rice Sue Minnesota?

The lawsuit, Manoomin, et.al., v. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, was filed in August 2021 in the White Earth Band of Ojibwe’s tribal court. Unlike any prior U.S. case, the lead plaintiff is a plant species—manoomin itself—joined by White Earth Band tribal members. The defendants are the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) and the State of Minnesota. The core issue: whether permits issued for Line 3 constitute a violation of the rights of manoomin and of treaty rights held by the Ojibwe people.

The DNR permitted Enbridge to use up to 5 billion gallons of groundwater for pipeline construction.
Wild rice depends on healthy, undisturbed aquatic habitats, threatened by groundwater extraction and ecosystem disruption.
The lawsuit asserts both biocentric (rights of nature) claims and treaty-based human rights claims.

The Rights of Nature Movement

At the heart of the case is a revolutionary legal principle: the rights of nature. This philosophy asserts that natural entities—plants, rivers, ecosystems—possess legal rights similar to people or corporations. Such rights might include the right to exist, flourish, regenerate, and evolve independently of their utility to humans.

In 2018, the White Earth Band enacted a “Rights of Manoomin” law, making wild rice the first plant to receive legally enforceable rights under tribal law in the United States.
This law gives manoomin legal standing to defend its existence and habitat in court, paralleling human litigants.
The broader rights of nature movement has seen rivers, forests, and ecosystems recognized as legal entities in places such as Ecuador, New Zealand, and various U.S. communities.

Line 3 Pipeline and the Environmental Threat

The Line 3 replacement project by Enbridge is a massive oil pipeline cutting through northern Minnesota—crossing more than 200 bodies of water, including culturally significant wild rice beds. Construction requires enormous amounts of water and risks spills, habitat degradation, and profound environmental impacts.

The DNR permitted Enbridge to temporarily withdraw 5 billion gallons of water for construction zones, with concerns of long-term aquifer damage and reduced wetland levels.
Wild rice beds are especially vulnerable to changes in water level, pollution, sediment disruption, and oil contamination.
Many public lands and waters traversed by the pipeline are within areas protected by Ojibwe treaty rights and hold deep ecological and spiritual value.

The Tribal Law: Rights of Manoomin

In December 2018, the White Earth Band of Ojibwe passed the Rights of Manoomin law, recognizing that wild rice possesses rights to “exist, flourish, regenerate, and evolve,” in addition to rights concerning restoration and preservation. This tribal law was a direct response to repeated threats against manoomin beds from industrial encroachment and water use.

The law embodies the Ojibwe worldview that recognizes reciprocal relationships among species and the land.
It is the first law in the U.S. to grant rights of nature to a specific plant, setting a potential precedent for other tribes and jurisdictions.
This law forms the basis for manoomin’s standing as plaintiff in the tribal court case.

Tribal Treaty Rights and U.S. Law

Several U.S. treaties with the Chippewa (Ojibwe) people—the 1837, 1854, and 1855 treaties—recognize hunting, fishing, and gathering rights on ceded territories, including wild rice gathering on public waters. These rights are enduring and enforceable, despite subsequent land cessions or changes in state jurisdiction.

The lawsuit argues that the state violated both treaty rights and the rights of manoomin.
Enforcement of treaty rights has been central to Indigenous resistance in the Great Lakes, particularly where threats to traditional food sources like wild rice have arisen.
The combination of biocentric (nature’s rights) and anthropocentric (treaty rights) arguments is unique in U.S. environmental litigation.

Legal and Jurisdictional Controversies

The state of Minnesota swiftly challenged the White Earth tribal court’s authority, filing a motion to dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction. State officials argued that tribal courts should not adjudicate disputes that implicate state permitting or interstate infrastructure. However, tribal leaders and their advocates maintain that the assertion of jurisdiction over natural resources within reservation or treaty lands is a central aspect of tribal sovereignty.

This contest of jurisdiction is itself a high-stakes legal battle over the scope of tribal legal systems and the power of Indigenous nations to enforce both treaty and natural rights within their territories.
Legal advocates see this case as a key test of tribal courts’ capacities to advance rights of nature and environmental justice claims.
The case drew national attention when the Eighth Circuit denied Minnesota’s attempt to remove the suit to federal court, allowing tribal legal processes to proceed for the time being.

Potential Legal Precedents

The lawsuit has broad significance, both for Indigenous communities seeking greater control over their natural resources and for the wider rights of nature movement in North America. By combining human treaty rights and nature’s rights in the same litigation, it forges a new legal strategy for environmental protection.

Legal Principle	Traditional Approach	Rights of Nature Approach
Standing in Court	Human plaintiffs (individuals, tribes)	Nature itself (plants, rivers, ecosystems)
Remedy Sought	Damages or injunctions for people	Restoration, preservation of natural entity
Legal Basis	Treaty and environmental law	Indigenous/traditional law; explicit rights of nature statutes
Broader Outcome	Resource management, compensation	Recognition of nature’s personhood; new legal precedents

Community and Global Implications

The case has resonated far beyond Minnesota. Rights of nature advocates across the globe view manoomin’s suit as a milestone, potentially catalyzing similar efforts for other species or ecosystems. For tribal communities, the case is a forceful assertion of spiritual and sovereign responsibilities to uphold the well-being of all relations—human and more-than-human alike.

Should the tribal court, or eventually U.S. federal courts, favor the rights of manoomin, it could set transformative precedents for environmental governance, Indigenous law, and ecosystem defense.
Other tribal nations and local governments are watching closely, weighing possible enactment of their own rights of nature ordinances or laws.
Legal scholars note this hybrid strategy offers tools to fight ecological degradation where conventional environmental laws fall short.

Obstacles and Strategic Aims

Unfortunately, success in the tribal court does not guarantee compliance from state authorities. Tribal attorneys assert that, regardless of the state’s willingness to recognize tribal court judgments, the suit elevates Indigenous legal norms and rights of nature arguments onto national and international stages. If necessary, victories in tribal courts can be a springboard for federal court challenges, opening new frontiers for the rights of nature in U.S. jurisprudence.

The state’s refusal to accept tribal court decisions may prompt protracted litigation and higher court appeals.
The lawsuit draws attention to the ongoing marginalization of Indigenous legal forums.
Still, the integration of rights of nature and treaty rights reinforces broader calls for legal innovation and environmental justice.

The Future of Rights of Nature in the United States

This case is one of the most prominent rights of nature enforcement suits in U.S. history, particularly as it intersects with tribal sovereignty and environmental racism. While tribal nations have long recognized the personhood or agency of specific species, this is a rare example of such understanding being applied within a formal legal process—and in a U.S. court system, no less.

Legal observers predict more rights of nature ordinances at tribal, municipal, and even state levels as public awareness grows.
Indigenous legal leadership on environmental stewardship is being widely acknowledged and emulated.
Integration of rights of nature into common law and statutes remains a formidable, but promising, legal frontier.

The Cultural and Ethical Dimensions

Beneath the legal wrangling lies a profound cultural rift over how society relates to the living world. For the Ojibwe and other Indigenous peoples, the fact that wild rice may need to “sue” humans for its own survival is itself a sign of legal and ethical imbalance. Manoomin’s lawsuit brings traditional wisdom—about our duty to other beings and the moral rights of the land—into the courtroom.

The lawsuit is both an assertion of sovereignty and a plea to honor Earth’s limits and lifeways developed over millennia.
It challenges dominant anthropocentric legal assumptions by insisting on reciprocal relationships among species, places, and people.
Ultimately, it invites reconsideration of the role of law in safeguarding the future for all who depend on water, land, and the gifts of nature.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

Q: How can a plant be a plaintiff in court?

A: Under the “rights of nature” legal concept, plants, rivers, and ecosystems are recognized as having legal standing to protect their own existence. The White Earth Band’s law explicitly grants standing to manoomin.

Q: What is the significance of the Enbridge Line 3 project in this case?

A: The project required massive water extraction and threatens wild rice habitats, making it a key example of why rights of nature may be needed to halt environmentally harmful projects.

Q: What are the potential long-term impacts of this case?

A: A successful outcome could set legal precedents for both tribal sovereignty and the rights of nature, inspiring new laws and legal strategies in North America and beyond.

Q: How does this relate to Indigenous treaty rights?

A: The case combines rights of nature with the enforcement of historic treaty rights guaranteeing tribal access to gather wild rice and protect natural habitats on ceded lands.

Q: What challenges might the lawsuit face?

A: Jurisdictional disputes, state resistance, and potential appeals to federal courts all stand as obstacles—but each stage of litigation advances the public debate on rights of nature and Indigenous law.

References

Author

Sneha TeteBeauty & Lifestyle Writer

Sneha is a relationships and lifestyle writer with a strong foundation in applied linguistics and certified training in relationship coaching. She brings over five years of writing experience to thebridalbox, crafting thoughtful, research-driven content that empowers readers to build healthier relationships, boost emotional well-being, and embrace holistic living.

Read full bio of Sneha Tete