The U.S. Supreme Court is currently reviewing a pivotal case that could significantly impact the scope of environmental reviews required for major infrastructure projects. At issue is a proposed 88-mile railway in northeastern Utah, designed to transport crude oil from the Uinta Basin to an existing freight rail network. Environmental groups and the state of Colorado are challenging the project’s approval, citing concerns over its potential effects on wildlife, vegetation, and air quality.
During oral arguments on Tuesday, the justices indicated they may impose limits on the extent to which federal agencies must assess the environmental impacts of such projects. The dispute centers on whether the Surface Transportation Board (STB), the federal agency that oversees railroad construction, adequately evaluated the potential risks associated with the railway. In 2021, the STB issued an environmental impact statement (EIS) and granted approval for the railway, but the project was blocked by a lower court ruling in 2023.
The case raises questions about the application of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), a law enacted in 1970 to ensure that federal agencies account for potential environmental harms from major projects. Under NEPA, agencies must assess the “reasonably foreseeable” environmental effects of a proposed project. However, the Supreme Court may now limit the breadth of those reviews, potentially narrowing the scope of what agencies are required to consider.
Environmental groups, including the Center for Biological Diversity, argue that the STB’s review was insufficient, particularly in addressing the long-term ecological impacts of transporting crude oil through sensitive regions. Additionally, officials from Colorado have raised concerns about the risks of spills and accidents along the Colorado River, which could be exacerbated by the increased rail traffic from the project.
On the other side, proponents of the project, including a coalition of Utah counties and infrastructure investors, argue that the delays caused by extensive environmental reviews threaten the viability of critical infrastructure projects. They assert that overly broad reviews impose excessive costs and delays, discouraging necessary investments in infrastructure. Paul Clement, a lawyer for the coalition, emphasized that “time is money,” particularly when projects face challenges from opponents who seek to delay progress.
Liberal and conservative justices alike expressed concern during oral arguments that overzealous judicial scrutiny has led to unnecessarily extensive reviews of environmental impacts. Conservative Justice Brett Kavanaugh noted that excessive judicial involvement has incentivized agencies to produce lengthy and complex environmental impact statements, sometimes stretching thousands of pages.
The case also has political ramifications, as the Biden administration has sided with the railway coalition, emphasizing the importance of streamlined regulatory processes for infrastructure development. Meanwhile, fifteen states have supported the challengers, with particular emphasis on the risks the project poses to local ecosystems and public health.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor raised concerns about the legal test proposed by the challengers, suggesting that it might be too narrow in scope. Similarly, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson questioned whether the environmental impacts on refinery communities, far from the railway’s route, should be considered in the board’s approval decision.
The final ruling could set a new precedent for how federal agencies assess the environmental consequences of major infrastructure projects. If the Court rules in favor of limiting the scope of environmental reviews, it could pave the way for more streamlined approval processes, but it may also spark continued debate over balancing economic development with environmental protection.
Read more: