In a significant decision Thursday, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled to limit the scope of environmental reviews required for major infrastructure projects under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The ruling is expected to streamline federal approvals for projects like highways, pipelines, and railways by clarifying what environmental impacts agencies must evaluate.
🚧 The Case: Uinta Basin Railway
The case centered around an 88-mile railway intended to transport waxy crude oil from Utah’s Uinta Basin to national rail lines. The project, overseen by the Surface Transportation Board (STB), drew legal challenges from environmental groups who argued that the review process inadequately considered the broader environmental consequences, including the climate impact of increased oil extraction and combustion.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh, writing for the majority, emphasized the procedural—not substantive—role of NEPA.
“NEPA is a procedural cross-check, not a substantive roadblock,” Kavanaugh wrote. “Courts should afford substantial deference and should not micromanage those agency choices so long as they fall within a broad zone of reasonableness.”
The Court ruled that federal agencies are not required to consider indirect or speculative effects outside of their regulatory control—such as emissions from refining or burning transported oil—if those impacts fall under the jurisdiction of other agencies.
đź‘Ą Court Unanimity, But Different Reasoning
The decision was unanimous, though Justice Neil Gorsuch recused himself, as reported by multiple outlets. No official reason was given, but observers noted potential ethical concerns due to past associations with Denver billionaire Philip Anschutz, whose financial interests could be affected by the project. Gorsuch has declined comment.
The three liberal justices—Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson—concurred with the outcome but issued a separate opinion. Sotomayor wrote that while agencies must assess environmental impacts, they should limit their reviews to areas within their statutory authority.
“Under NEPA, agencies must consider the environmental impacts for which their decisions would be responsible,” she noted, arguing that STB is not accountable for upstream oil production or downstream refining emissions.
⚖️ Broader Implications
The ruling is the latest in a series of Supreme Court decisions that narrow environmental regulatory authority, particularly following the 2022 decision in West Virginia v. EPA, which limited the Environmental Protection Agency’s ability to regulate power plant emissions.
Legal analysts note that this latest decision could speed up federal approvals for energy and transportation infrastructure but also reduce the range of environmental factors considered.
Environmental advocates worry the ruling weakens safeguards meant to ensure long-term environmental and public health considerations are factored into major federal projects.
âś… Fact Check Section
| Claim | Status | Explanation |
|---|---|---|
| The Supreme Court limited environmental reviews under NEPA | âś… True | The ruling clarifies that agencies do not need to evaluate impacts outside their regulatory authority. |
| The decision was unanimous | âś… True | All participating justices agreed with the ruling, though some wrote separate opinions. |
| Justice Gorsuch recused himself | âś… True | Confirmed; no official reason was provided. |
| The ruling “sped up” infrastructure approvals | 🔶 Partially True | The ruling may reduce delays, but actual timelines depend on implementation and future challenges. |
| The case involved a billionaire with ties to Gorsuch | 🔶 Partially Supported | Anschutz is a known associate, and his company had an interest in the rail project. Gorsuch recused, but no formal link was cited as the reason. |
🧾 Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s ruling further defines the limits of NEPA’s reach, emphasizing that agencies should focus on environmental effects directly tied to their decisions. While business groups and infrastructure advocates welcomed the decision for cutting red tape, environmental groups cautioned that narrowing review processes may overlook broader ecological and climate-related consequences.
With a growing backlog of federal infrastructure projects, the ruling may influence how future environmental reviews are conducted—and how expansive or limited they will be in addressing cumulative impacts.
