Supreme Court narrows key environmental law's scope in 8-0 ruling
Add Axios as your preferred source to
see more of our stories on Google.
Illustration: Shoshana Gordon/Axios
The Supreme Court unanimously decided Thursday to limit environmental reviews for major infrastructure projects in a case that has profound implications for President Trump's "energy dominance" agenda.
Why it matters: The justices' decision reduces the scope of reviews under the National Environmental Policy Act to focus only on immediate impacts.
- Under NEPA, federal agencies must study any potentially significant environmental consequences of federal permits for infrastructure projects.
- Industry officials and their supporters have long complained that NEPA reviews have grown beyond what Congress intended, often dragging out the approval process.
Driving the news: At issue in Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County was whether the federal Surface Transportation Board should assess climate change impacts when authorizing a railway seeking to connect Utah's crude oil to the national rail network and on to Gulf Coast refineries.
- Justices determined that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit went too far in requiring regulators to look at potential effects on Gulf Coast communities.
- The court, in an 8-0 opinion with Justice Neil Gorsuch recusing himself, said federal agencies are entitled to "substantial judicial deference" in NEPA cases.
- Justice Sonia Sotomayor and the court's other two liberal justices said federal regulators lack the authority to take into account any harms caused by the oil that might eventually be carried on the railway.
What they're saying: "Seven County shows the many ways that the administrative state and activist courts have created a massive industry of litigation over minor omissions in environmental impact statements, though Congress intended no such thing," Mario Loyola, a senior fellow at the conservative Heritage Foundation, wrote in a blog post last year.
- After oral arguments in December, League of Conservation Voters senior director of judiciary and democracy Doug Lindner said the rail line would increase the risk of rail accidents, wildfires, and water contamination.
- "By weakening NEPA to approve this project, the justices would imperil protections from harm and pollution from countless future projects," Lindner said in a statement.
