The U.S. Supreme Court sharply narrowed the scope of a key environmental statute on Thursday.
The decision makes it easier to win approval for highways, bridges, pipelines, wind farms and other infrastructure projects.
The Supreme Court, however, reversed that ruling, and in so doing dramatically limited the 1970 law.
The Court’s conservatives, however, took a major whack at the NEPA law.
“Right or wrong, that’s not been the NEPA law for 50 years,” said Lazarus.
The U. S. . On Thursday, the Supreme Court significantly reduced the reach of a significant environmental law. Highways, bridges, pipelines, wind farms, and other infrastructure projects now have an easier time getting approved thanks to the ruling.
Since it establishes a regulatory framework that requires the federal government to consult with a wide range of agencies regarding the potential effects of proposed infrastructure projects prior to their construction, the National Environmental Policy Act is regarded as the country’s most important environmental law.
The proposed 88-mile railroad that would link the Uinta Basin, which is rich in oil in Utah, to the national freight rail system was at the center of Thursday’s case. When constructed, the new rail lines would make it easier to transport crude oil to refineries along the Gulf Coast in Texas and Louisiana.
As part of the review process, the U. S. . The Surface Transportation Board gathered opinions from other organizations, wrote a 3,600-page report, and authorized the railroad project after determining that the advantages for transportation and the economy outweighed the environmental costs. The U. S. . The Board was found to have violated NEPA by neglecting to take into account the environmental impacts of oil production and drilling, or upstream, and oil refining and distribution, or downstream, according to a subsequent Court of Appeals decision in Washington.
However, the Supreme Court overturned that decision, severely restricting the 1970 law in the process. Although Justice Neil Gorsuch did not participate in the deliberations, the vote was unanimous, and the three liberal members of the court wrote a more constrained concurring opinion. But the conservatives on the Court severely criticized the NEPA statute.
Harvard Law Professor Richard Lazarus, who has written a great deal about NEPA, said, “They did a major cutback.”. In essence, he claimed, the court had established a new categorical rule that forbade taking into account the projects’ upstream and downstream effects. According to Lazarus, “that hasn’t been the NEPA law for 50 years, right or wrong.”.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who wrote the majority opinion for the court, stated that as long as agency decisions “fall within a broad zone of reasonableness,” courts should respect agency judgments regarding where to draw the line when evaluating environmental effects. “.”.
NEPA, according to Kavanaugh, is “purely a procedural statute” and should not be viewed as “a roadblock,” setting it apart from other environmental laws. His opinion was presented as a “judicial correction,” citing “delay after delay” on several projects that, in his words, occasionally “bordered on the Kafkaesque.”. “.”.
According to Lazarus, Kavanaugh’s opinion reads more like a legislative policy initiative than a judicial correction. He goes on a tirade about how terrible NEPA has been, how it has prevented all of these things, and how it costs jobs. Furthermore, no references [to any factual findings] are included. Lazarus remarked, “He’s made it up.”. “The policy argument is comprehensive. “,”.
However, Lazarus acknowledged that throughout the years, NEPA has consistently faced opposition from both Congress and the courts. For example, he mentioned that Congress limited the scope of the NEPA review in 2023, during the Biden administration.
As Lazarus notes, some environmental organizations have also supported accelerating the process, including “national groups who want those transmission grids built, and those windmills up, and those solar panel huge facilities built.”. That tension was thus brought about by NEPA. “.”.
But the decision on Thursday disappointed a lot of environmental groups. As it seeks to advance fossil fuels, eradicate renewable energy, and undermine reasonable pollution regulations, Earthjustice characterized the ruling as an invitation for the Trump administration to “ignore environmental concerns.”. “..”.
Conversely, the court’s ruling delighted a wide range of interests in real estate, oil, lumber, mining, and other sectors.
Lawyer Hadassah Reimer, who filed a friend of the court brief on behalf of these interest groups, stated that courts have been asking agencies to speculate on downstream impacts that are outside of their regulatory authority and over which they have no control in recent years. The ruling “will promote more efficient and effective NEPA review for countless projects across the country,” she said. “..”.
