The U.S. Supreme Court on May 29 unanimously curtailed the reach of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the nation’s bedrock environmental review law, in a ruling that revives a stalled 88-mile Utah railway project to transport crude oil.
Writing for the majority, Justice Brett Kavanaugh said courts must defer to agency judgments under NEPA and do not need to require environmental analyses of separate, indirect projects, such as future oil drilling or refining.
Case background
In 2020, the Seven County Infrastructure Coalition applied to the U.S. Surface Transportation Board (STB) to build a rail line through Utah’s Uinta Basin, a region rich in oil resources but geographically isolated. The proposed railway would enable oil producers in the basin to transport crude oil by train to Gulf Coast refineries, providing a more efficient alternative to trucking.
The board conducted a detailed review of the project under NEPA, issuing a 3,600-page Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) that analyzed direct impacts from the rail construction and operation. The board noted—but did not fully evaluate—the potential environmental consequences of related but separate developments, concluding that the issue is the approval of the rail line, not the future of oil and gas development or the refining of Uinta Basin oil. In 2021, the STB approved the railway, citing substantial transportation and economic benefits that outweighed the environmental concerns.
That approval was challenged in the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals by Eagle County, CO, and several environmental organizations. The court vacated both the EIS and the board’s approval, concluding that the EIS had failed to adequately examine reasonably foreseeable impacts, including those stemming from oil production and refining linked to the project.
Opinion
Kavanaugh criticized the D.C. Circuit’s ruling for failing to give appropriate deference to the STB and misinterpreting NEPA’s requirements. He emphasized that NEPA is a procedural statute that mandates disclosure and consideration of environmental effects, but not any particular outcome or policy result.
Kavanaugh said that judicial review in NEPA cases must be grounded in deference. When an agency prepares an EIS, courts must not “micromanage” its decisions or demand an exhaustive analysis of indirect effects from other projects, especially when those projects are outside the agency’s jurisdiction.
Additionally, Kavanaugh took aim at a trend he said has developed in lower courts, which, in his view, has allowed NEPA to expand far beyond its original function.
“NEPA has transformed from a modest procedural requirement into a blunt and haphazard tool employed by project opponents … to try to stop or at least slow down new infrastructure,” he wrote.
He clarified that an EIS must address the environmental effects of the project under direct agency review—the “proposed action”—but not those of separate, future or geographically distant projects. For instance, the board’s EIS appropriately considered the environmental consequences of constructing and operating the railway itself but was not required to analyze drilling operations in Utah or refining processes in Texas or Louisiana.
According to Kavanaugh, courts must resist using NEPA to “interject [themselves] within the area of discretion … as to the choice of the action to be taken” by agencies. He cautioned against allowing NEPA to become a platform for litigants to contest broader policy questions under the guise of environmental procedure.
The court reversed the decision of the D.C. Circuit Court and remanded the case for further proceedings in accordance with the opinion.
Reaction
Environmental groups sharply criticized the Supreme Court’s ruling, warning that it gives federal agencies a green light to sidestep serious environmental consequences when evaluating major infrastructure projects. The ruling, they said, effectively permits agencies to ignore foreseeable environmental harms that may be distant in time or geography, and shields those decisions from judicial scrutiny by granting agencies broad deference.
“Today’s ruling relieves federal agencies of the obligation to review all foreseeable environmental harms and grants them more leeway to decide what potential environmental harms to analyze, despite what communities may think is important,” said Sam Sankar, Earthjustice senior vice president of programs.
Sierra Club senior attorney Nathaniel Shoaff echoed those concerns, warning the decision will make it easier for fossil fuel projects to move forward without accountability.
Supporters of the Uinta Basin Railway and proponents of reforming environmental review laws celebrated the Supreme Court’s decision to narrow the scope of NEPA. They called it a long-overdue correction that will reduce judicial overreach and help clear the path for vital infrastructure projects.
The Mountain States Legal Foundation, which represented the American Forest Resource Council and Western Energy Alliance as amici in the case, praised the ruling for reinforcing the principle that courts must defer to agencies when reviewing environmental impact statements.
The Western Energy Alliance described the decision as a significant win for small energy and infrastructure projects, which often face lengthy legal battles. Alliance President Melissa Simpson said the decision sends a “powerful message” to lower courts that have become known as forums for project opponents to block development, and called on Congress to enact permitting reforms that would further streamline the process. — Charles Wallace, WLJ contributing editor
