On December 10, the U.S. Supreme Court heard a critical case, *Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County*, which could limit environmental impact reviews under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). NEPA mandates that federal agencies assess the foreseeable environmental effects of proposed projects. The case centers on the Surface Transportation Board’s approval of an 88-mile railway line connecting Utah’s crude oil refineries to national rail networks. Opponents argue the board failed to adequately assess the environmental impact, particularly the downstream effects of increased oil transport.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit previously ruled that the board’s approval was flawed, asserting that it overlooked significant downstream environmental effects. In defense of the project, former Solicitor General Paul Clement argued that NEPA’s goal is to inform decision-making, not to halt it. He emphasized that the environmental impact of the refinery’s output, more than 1,000 miles away, should be studied by a different agency.
However, Eagle County’s attorney, William Jay, argued that NEPA requires agencies to collaborate on a comprehensive environmental review, as the railway’s purpose is to transport crude oil in large quantities, making downstream impacts foreseeable.
Appellate advocate Michael Kimberly highlighted that NEPA has become a tool for obstruction by opponents of development, suggesting that considering all potential downstream effects could delay projects indefinitely.
The case is significant for business interests, with concerns that prolonged reviews could hinder development. Only eight justices will decide the case after Justice Neil Gorsuch recused himself, but it appears likely that a majority of justices will limit NEPA’s scope regarding environmental reviews.
