Whatever kind of case they were trying to build --- it didn't seem to be an environmental case ---  they built it shabbily.  As I went through the judge's decision, I tried to find fault with it.  I tried to see it the Dakotas' way, something that might justify their claim.  What I found instead was an empty claim of victimhood which, if successful, would pay huge dividends.   Fair-minded people are repulsed by this --- even when the party from whom reparation is sought is a big oil company.  Maybe the judge didn't report all the relevant facts.  I don't know; I'm not an expert in the case.  But the decision does seem to have been written very objectively.   I suggest that everyone who wants to have an informed opinion about the case read the decision, however tedious it may be.  (Actually, it's a pretty good read, as legal decisions go.)