Lawton, OK – “My duty is to the people of Oklahoma – not to foreign interests attempting to force a harmful project on a peaceful community. That’s why I’m continuing to stand against the proposed aluminum smelter in court, even in the face of incredible opposition to transparency and accountability to the law,” Oklahoma Attorney General Gentner Drummond said in a post on X.
Drummond’s comments came as he continued his legal fight against the proposed Oklahoma Primary Aluminum smelter near Inola in Rogers County. The attorney general is asking a federal court to return his lawsuit against the project to Rogers County District Court, arguing that the case is based entirely on Oklahoma law and belongs in state court, state officials said.
In a filing with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma, Drummond argued that the companies behind the project improperly moved the case from state court to federal court and that the federal court does not have jurisdiction over the state’s claims. He is also asking the court to require the defendants to pay the state’s costs and attorney fees associated with the move.
The legal dispute began in June, when Drummond filed a lawsuit seeking to stop development of the proposed smelter. His office has argued that the project could pose risks to residents, livestock and natural resources in the Rogers County area.
The defendants subsequently removed the case to federal court on July 21. Drummond is now seeking to have the case sent back to Rogers County District Court, where he originally filed it.
In his latest filing, Drummond argued that the state’s claims arise under Oklahoma law and that the presence of federal issues does not provide sufficient grounds for moving the case to federal court. His office also cited precedent from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit concerning when state-law cases can be removed to federal court, per reports.
“The law on this issue is clear, and the defendants had no reasonable basis to drag this case into federal court,” Drummond said in a statement released by his office. He added that Oklahoma taxpayers should not be responsible for costs associated with what he described as an unnecessary legal detour.
The effort to return the case to state court is only one part of Drummond’s broader challenge to the smelter.
Earlier this month, the attorney general asked a federal judge to temporarily block construction of the proposed facility while the underlying lawsuit proceeds. Oklahoma Voice reported that Drummond filed a motion for a preliminary injunction seeking to prevent construction from moving forward before the court determines whether the project complies with state law.
Drummond’s office has raised concerns about the project’s potential environmental impact, its ownership structure and the effect it could have on the surrounding community.
The proposed 350-acre facility, known as Oklahoma Primary Aluminum, would be the largest primary aluminum production plant ever constructed in the United States if completed. The project is expected to produce more than 750,000 metric tons of aluminum annually.
Ownership has also become a major issue in the legal and political debate. Emirates Global Aluminium, a state-owned enterprise of the United Arab Emirates, holds a 60% controlling interest in the project, while Century Aluminum, headquartered in Chicago, holds the remaining 40%.
The project has received support from Gov. Kevin Stitt and other state leaders, while Drummond has emerged as one of its most prominent opponents. The proposed smelter has also faced opposition from residents of the Inola area.
The town of Inola imposed a temporary moratorium on the project following community pushback. That moratorium is scheduled to expire Aug. 28, according to Oklahoma Voice. The proposed facility would be located near homes, farms and schools, adding to concerns among some residents about potential environmental and health effects.
The project has also attracted significant public financial support. Oklahoma Voice reported that it is backed by a $500 million federal grant and a $255 million state incentive package, while the City of Inola created a tax-increment-financing district connected to the development.
Drummond has argued that Oklahomans should have an opportunity to fully examine the project’s environmental consequences, ownership and governance ties before construction begins.
His office has also pointed to expert testimony submitted with his request for a preliminary injunction. One environmental consultant cited in the filing argued that emissions from the proposed smelter could create a range of adverse risks and that the project’s projected pollution levels may be underestimated.
Meanwhile, the companies behind the project have continued to pursue development. Oklahoma Energy Today recently reported that the head of the American partner in the project remained confident that construction could begin before the end of the year despite Drummond’s legal challenge.
For now, the legal fight remains unresolved. Drummond is asking the federal court to return the lawsuit to Rogers County District Court while separately seeking an injunction that would prevent construction from proceeding while the case is litigated.
His latest statement makes clear that he intends to continue challenging the project, framing the dispute as a question of state authority, environmental protection and accountability to Oklahoma residents.
“My duty is to the people of Oklahoma,” Drummond said, reaffirming his opposition to the proposed smelter as the legal battle moves forward.
