Construction continues on the Dakota Access Pipeline near the town of Cannon Ball, N.D., in October. (Reuters/Josh Morgan)

The acting secretary of the Army has instructed the Army Corps of Engineers to provide the final permit needed to complete the Dakota Access pipeline, according to two North Dakota GOP lawmakers who support the project.

Sen. John Hoeven and Rep. Kevin Cramer both issued statements Tuesday night saying the acting secretary of the Army, Robert Speer, had ordered the Corps to grant an easement for the pipeline to run under Lake Oahe.

“This will enable the company to complete the project,” Hoeven said, “which can and will be built with the necessary safety features to protect the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe and others downstream.”

Neither the White House nor the secretary of the Army could be immediately reached for comment.  Kamil Sztalkoper, deputy director of public affairs for the Army Corps of Engineers, referred comments to the Army secretary’s chief spokesman and said he “can’t confirm or deny whether that’s accurate.” A representative of the pipeline company, Energy Transfer Partners, said the company did not know anything beyond what it saw on Cramer and Hoeven’s websites.

The apparent move came a week after President Trump issued a presidential memorandum instructing the agency to “review and approve in an expedited manner, to the extent permitted by law and as warranted… for approvals to construct and operate” the pipeline.

[With new directives, Trump aims to revive long-stalled pipeline projects]

The Dakota Access pipeline has become a central battle point for environmentalists who are trying to stop pipelines in general as part of a campaign to keep fossil fuels in the ground. And it became a heavily symbolic battle for Native Americans as the Standing Rock Sioux tribe sought to prevent the pipeline company from disturbing sacred burial grounds and archaeological sites.

The 1,170-mile pipeline crosses four states, and would carry crude oil from the rich shale oil basins of western North Dakota to the pipeline networks and refineries in Illinois. The pipeline is virtually complete, with the 1,100-foot stretch crossing underneath Lake Oahe being one of the final pieces.

The Standing Rock Sioux have also argued that the pipeline puts their drinking water in danger. The final stretch of pipeline crosses under Lake Oahe, a reservoir created when Army Corps built dams further south on the Missouri River. The company plans to drill horizontally below the river bottom and it argues that the pipeline will be safer than trains and trucks that carry some of the crude oil currently being produced.

But opponents of the pipeline say it could still leak and contaminate the water.

President Obama, as weeks of protests added to political pressures, instructed the Army Corps to look at different route options for the pipeline. The company building the pipeline, Energy Transfer Partners, had considered laying the pipeline in the Bismarck suburbs, about 25 miles north of the current site. The Standing Rock Sioux officials have accused the company of racism for shunning largely white areas of Bismarck and digging in area close to the Native Americans.

A statement by the Standing Rock Sioux tribe, provided by its policy adviser Jodi Gillette Tuesday night, said that while a final easement had not yet been granted, tribal members planned to challenge any such action in court.

“The Army Corps lacks statutory authority to simply stop the [Environmental Impact Statement] and issue the easement. The Corps must review the Presidential Memorandum, notify Congress, and actually grant the easement. We have not received formal notice that the EIS has been suspended or withdrawn.”

“To abandon the EIS would amount to a wholly unexplained and arbitrary change based on the president’s personal views and, potentially, personal investments,” the statement added. “We stand ready to fight this battle against corporate interest superseding government procedure and the health and well-being of millions of Americans.”

Jan Hasselman, a lawyer with the environmental group Earth Justice, said the pipeline obstacles were still not settled. “The easement wasn’t issued,” he said. “We assume it’s coming soon, and are ready to litigate. But we’re still waiting for the shoe to drop.”

But Trump made it clear during the presidential campaign he backed the development of both the Dakota Access pipeline and Keystone XL, a project that spanned the U.S.-Canada border that Obama vetoed after a seven-year federal review process. Trump issued a separate directive inviting the company behind Keystone XL, TransCanada, to reapply for a presidential permit, but that process will take much longer.

Midwest Alliance for Infrastructure Now, a coalition of business, agriculture and labor groups, issued a statement praising the move.

“We appreciate that President Trump is keeping his word to move lawful, carefully sited energy projects forward,” the group said. “This is a positive development for the pipeline, construction workers across the country, and those who seek to invest in our nation’s infrastructure.”

Sen. Heidi Heitkamp (D-N.D.) also issued a statement welcoming the move, saying “we know construction will move forward – though we are waiting on more information in regards to a timeline for when construction can begin.”

Given the likely court challenge, it is unclear when work on the pipeline would restart. The tribal council has asked the few hundred protesters who remain on site to leave, in part because of harsh weather conditions.

Last fall, hundreds of law enforcement officers from different states and counties confronted protesters with water cannon, tear gas and pepper spray. Arrests reached a peak of more than 140 protesters. On Sunday, according to Hoeven, another 20 additional Bureau of Indian Affairs law enforcement officers arrived at Standing Rock to help local authorities.

It’s fair to say that, from a financial-results perspective, 2016 was rough for Apple. Sure, the company still made billions in profit on massive revenues, but Wall Street wants to see growth and the massive iPhone sales of 2015—when the company introduced the larger-sized iPhone 6 and iPhone 6 Plus—were just too big for 2016 to match.

But it’s a new fiscal year, and Apple’s latest financial results, announced Tuesday, suggest that the story of Apple in 2017 will be different. The company took a page out of its 2015 playbook, setting an all-time record for revenue, and provided guidance that it will likely show year-over-year revenue growth again next quarter. The company broke a bunch of other records, too–for Apple Watch, Services, and the Mac.

To be fair, Apple really does holiday quarters right. (Even the year-ago holiday quarter was a record.) It’s the company’s biggest quarter of the year by far, but that means there’s than much more at stake. Bottom line: Apple’s 2016 holidays were good. Here’s a deeper dive into some of the other interesting things we learned as a part of Apple’s regular disclosure of numbers and give-and-take with financial analysts about Q1 2017.

The iPhone might be unstoppable after all

Most of the sturm und drang about Apple’s 2016 involved a fall-off in iPhone sales from the prior year. But the iPhone is still huge. In the holiday quarter of 2016, Apple sold more iPhones than ever before, and iPhone revenue comprised a whopping 69 percent of Apple’s total revenue. (No other budget line could even manage 10 percent of the total.)

According to Apple CEO Tim Cook, iPhone 7 sales were greater than Apple’s own internal expectations, and the company wasn’t able to make the iPhone 7 Plus fast enough to meet demand until January, after the quarter had ended. According to Apple, the plus model saw “exceptionally strong demand,” higher than in previous years as a part of the overall product mix, and set a record for the most Plus models sold in a quarter.

Six Colors

Perhaps buyers were motivated by the phone’s two-camera system to step up from the smaller model. Regardless, it’s a phone that costs more–and the average selling price of the iPhone went up last quarter.

With great success comes great fear about what comes next for the iPhone, of course. Apple suggests that year-over-year performance for the iPhone will be similar next quarter as it was for this one, which would suggest that iPhone sales will slightly improve year-over-year, but it won’t be dramatic.

Services is a monster in waiting

Apple has been promoting its Services budget line, which includes the App Store, iTunes, Apple Music, Apple Pay, and iCloud, for a few years now, and given its impressive and consistent growth, that makes a lot of sense. The Services line set a revenue record during the holiday quarter, led by the biggest quarter for the App Store ever.

President Donald Trump’s choice for the Supreme Court, Neil Gorsuch, if confirmed could make his presence felt on the Court on a series of hot-button issues, including transgender rights, voter ID laws and gun control.

Gorsuch could also find himself in the awkward position of having rule on controversial actions taken by the same man who introduced him to the nation Tuesday night. Trump’s executive order limiting travel by citizens of seven Muslim-majority countries has already touched off a wave of litigation that is destined to eventually make its way to the Supreme Court.

Story Continued Below

But for the moment, the Court is unlikely to take up many controversial cases. After operating shorthanded for nearly a year since the unexpected death of Justice Antonin Scalia, the justices seem to be avoiding polarizing issues and holding back on granting certiorari, declining to review certain disputes brought from lower courts.

« It’s no secret the court has cut back on cert grants, especially in controversial cases and ones likely to split, 4-4, » said Carl Tobias, a law professor at the University of Richmond.

It seems doubtful Gorsuch will make it onto the court before arguments for this term wrap up in early April. But he could catch a rebound effect, as the justices begin to wade into issues in the next session that they’ve snubbed over the past year.

Here are some current areas of intense legal dispute where Gorsuch could weigh in if he becomes the next Supreme Court justice:

Gay rights and religious freedom

Gorsuch’s arrival won’t have any impact on the court’s stance towards gay marriage, since Scalia was in the minority on that ruling. However, the growing acceptance of gay nuptials and the gay community more generally has fueled disputes over rights of religious believers to refuse to provide services to gay couples. In many states, such practices violate anti-discrimination laws, but bakers, florists and others have claimed these laws intrude on religious beliefs.

Gorsuch has signaled a robust view of religious freedom rights, primarily through Obamacare-related cases, and he could join with other conservatives to rule that individuals and businesses sometimes have the right to discriminate against gays for religious reasons

« Can religious conservatives get an exemption from generally applicable laws? That’s definitely going to come up as a big issue in future years, » said Adam Winkler, a UCLA law professor. He predicted Gorsuch will be a « strong voice for religious exemptions. »

Transgender rights

Whether federal civil rights laws cover discrimination against transgender individuals is an issue currently before the court, but it’s possible that particular case goes away before Gorsuch makes it to the bench. In October, the justices agreed to hear a case involving a transgender boy’s right to use the boys’ bathroom at his Virginia public high school.

However, the case also involves the validity and significance of guidance the Obama administration’s Education Department issued urging such accommodations under federal law. If the Trump administration withdraws that guidance, the justices could punt the case.

Either way, though, the question of transgender rights at school and in the workplace under federal law is one the court seems certain to have to wrestle with in the next few years.

« Transgender rights is definitely going to come back up, » Winkler said. « That issue is not going to go away but I wouldn’t be surprised to see the justices kick the can down the road a bit. »

Trump’s terrorism-related immigration ban

Trump’s order last week limiting travel to the U.S. by nationals of seven majority-Muslim countries unleashed protests at U.S. airports and a still-growing flurry of legal challenges. How Gorsuch might rule on the legal questions posed by Trump’s move is a mystery. Conservative judges tend to be deferential to the executive branch on national security-related issues, but Gorsuch’s strong concerns about religious liberty might lead him to be skeptical about rules that are arguably designed to impact a particular religion.

« That kind of religious discrimination could well cause Gorsuch to take a second look, » Winkler said.

Labor unions

Perhaps the most certain result of putting Gorsuch on the court is an eventual setback for public employee unions. Such unions avoided a likely defeat after Scalia’s death last year when the court deadlocked, 4-4, in a case about fees for a large California teachers’ union. The result signaled that if Scalia had still been on the court, a union’s right to collect fees from employees who opt-out of the union would have been eliminated, dealing a potentially severe blow to the finances and political clout of the already-struggling labor movement.

Almost any Republican appointee would be expected to side with other GOP justices to rein in that practice. Assuming Trump can get some nominee seated, it seems to be just a matter of time before the court revisits the issue and brings down the hammer that the unions narrowly escaped last March.

Voter ID laws

States with Republican legislatures have passed a variety of measures in recent years allegedly aimed at preventing voter fraud, but which Democrats contend are thinly-veiled efforts to make it harder for minorities to vote. Trump has fueled the controversy since taking office with his unsubstantiated claim that 3 million to 5 million people voted illegally in last November’s presidential election–all of them voting for his Democratic opponent, Hillary Clinton.

Just last week, the Supreme Court declined to review a case about Texas’s 2014 voter ID law. Last July, a federal appeals court splintered over the measure,but a majority held that the measure had a discriminatory effect that violated the Voting Rights Act.

When the justices turned the case down, Chief Justice John Roberts issued a somewhat unusual statement that almost invited state officials to bring the case back to the high court after another round of litigation in the lower courts is complete. « The issues will be better suited for certiorari review at that time, » Roberts wrote.

Deregulation

The one view that made Gorsuch such a star with legal conservatives is his view that judges should do more to check the power of the modern regulatory state. That was an uncontroversial position on the right during the eight years of the Obama administration.

What it means for the Trump administration is more complicated. As Trump’s team moves to roll back climate change regulations, water pollution controls, pay and overtime regulations and similar measures put in place by Obama, the courts will be asked to rule on many of those moves.

Gorsuch’s rulings suggest he’s inclined to take a rigorous look at agencies’ actions in those areas and to make an independent determination of what the law requires, rather than deferring to agencies’ expertise.

« Congress isn’t going to much of a job checking this president. Courts will do a better job of that because most judges take their jobs seriously, » Winkler said. « Things like ‘alternative facts’ don’t fly in a court of law. Conservative judges might not be that thrilled to help Donald Trump in his most extreme efforts. »