SCOTUS hears arguments in case that could reshape environmental law

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments Tuesday in a case that could reshape key environmental laws and determine the future of Western oil rail projects.

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires federal agencies to review environmental impacts before making decisions and issue a “detailed statement” of their review.

SCOTUS heard arguments in Seven Counties Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County to determine whether government agencies are required to investigate environmental impacts beyond the “immediate effects of the regulatory agency's actions.” The justices appear open to revisiting NEPA's scope, but did not say how they would adjust the law.

The Seven-Country Infrastructure Coalition (SCIC) has petitioned the Surface Transportation Board (STB), a federal agency, to build a more than 130-mile transportation system connecting crude oil from Utah's Uinta Basin to the National Railroad.

Federal court strikes down decades of environmental regulations

STB released an environmental impact statement for the railroad, but opponents of the Eagle County, Colorado, project argued that the federal agency violated NEPA by not considering all environmental impacts.

The Supreme Court appears to be divided over state bans on gender reassignment “treatment'' for minors.

The case went to the D.C. Circuit Court, which ruled that STB violated environmental laws and ordered a new, more thorough investigation before moving forward with the project. In March 2024, SCIC filed a complaint with SCOTUS regarding this matter.

Paul Clement, an attorney supporting the SCIC project, argued that this was a “simple case” and called on NEPA to limit itself to the “direct cause” doctrine.

“NEPA is a self-proclaimed procedural law. It is intended to inform, not paralyze, government decision-making,” Clement argued on Tuesday.

Price River Terminal, a crude oil transportation terminal near Wellington, Utah. Crude oil is brought in by tanker trucks and transferred to rail tank cars at this terminal. (John G. Fuller/Getty Images)

Clement said the D.C. court's request to conduct further environmental review is “a recipe for turning procedural law into a substantial roadblock.”

“All of these are not only remote in time and space, but are also well beyond the scope of the STB's limited remand and authority, and are comprehensively and specifically addressed when such issues arise. “It's within the jurisdiction of other agencies that can do that,” he said. Oral argument.

Several justices appear to agree that it may not have been necessary for the D.C. court to conduct an entirely new environmental review of the project.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor said: “It doesn't matter if we failed to look into something.” “So the question before us was: Is it arbitrary and capricious not to consider more?”

The justices asked how Clement's request would affect the scope of environmental reviews, including small and large projects.

US Supreme Court building in Washington DC (Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)

“If the environmental impact statement is focused on a project, that would be informative,” Clement said. “You could choose one route versus another, and the agency itself could take mitigation measures.” “But if you have to see everything under the sun, it's important.” It is outside the scope of the agency. ”

“This case is bigger than the Uinta Basin Railroad,” Sam Sankar, Earthjustice's vice president of programs, said in a statement. “The fossil fuel industry and its allies are making radical arguments that hide the clear health consequences of government decisions from the public. Courts should instead stick to the settled law. Yes. If we don't, our communities will pay the price.”

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

Justice Neil Gorsuch recused himself from the case on Dec. 4 ahead of arguments.