High Court Limits NEPA, Adds Momentum to Reform Efforts

A unanimous U.S. Supreme Court decision in Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County, Colorado, narrowed the scope of reviews under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and strongly urged greater judicial deference to agency reviews and decisions.

Court Restricts NEPA Scope to Agency Jurisdiction

The 8-0 ruling, with Justice Gorsuch recusing himself from the case, held that agencies are not required to consider environmental impacts beyond the scope of their jurisdiction as part of NEPA reviews.

The case involved a proposed 88-mile rail line in Utah that would primarily be used to transport crude oil to rail connections near refineries. The federal Surface Transportation Board's (STB) decision to allow the construction of the line was halted when the approval was appealed on the grounds that the agency did not adequately consider the impacts of oil production and refining.

The Supreme Court disagreed, noting that NEPA only requires an agency to review the environmental effects of the proposed action, not the effects of "future or geographically separate projects," and any NEPA analysis or review need only focus on the impacts under the jurisdiction of STB — the rail line itself.

The Court did note that some indirect effects of a project may fall within the scope of a NEPA review. Still, these indirect effects do include impacts from separate projects that, according to the Court, break "the chain of proximate causation between the project at hand and the environmental effects of the separate project."

Scope Narrows, Accelerating Reform Efforts

APA filed an amicus curiae brief in the case. Supporting neither side, the brief noted the role of NEPA reviews and analyses in informing plans and planning processes.

The decision, authored by Justice Kavanaugh, called for a "course correction" and emphasized that the judicial role in the NEPA process needs to be significantly reined in. "A 1970 legislative acorn has grown over the years into a judicial oak that has hindered infrastructure development under the guise of just a little more process. A course correction of sorts is appropriate to bring judicial review under NEPA back in line with the statutory text and common sense."

While Justice Kavanaugh and the Court worked to nudge the judiciary in the direction of deference, some of the standards in the ruling may invite further questions and uncertainty. Determinations of what constitutes a "separate project" or "zone of reasonableness" seem likely to generate litigation.

Beyond the legal specifics of the ruling, the case gives further momentum to efforts in both the legislative and executive branches to reform and constrain NEPA. Congress has already acted on some elements addressed in the ruling through provisions included in the 2024 debt ceiling legislation. Further action on Capitol Hill may be coming with streamlining provisions in the House-passed tax reconciliation bill and further opportunities in the upcoming transportation reauthorization and potential permitting reform legislation.

The Trump administration has been active as well, releasing an Executive Order and regulatory actions to shift procedural authority away from the Council on Environmental Quality to federal agencies.

Bipartisan action on Capitol Hill and a unanimous Supreme Court ruling may suggest a growing ideological consensus on the need for changes in environmental reviews and concerns about the impact of lengthy reviews and litigation on issues from energy to housing.

Top image: iStock/Getty Images Plus - Bilanol