U.S. Supreme Court issues unanimous decision in landmark National Environmental Policy Act case

Key Takeaways

On May 29, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a 8-0 decision (Justice Neil Gorsuch recused himself) in Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County, Colorado that will reshape the requirements for National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) environmental impact statements (EIS) federal agencies must put together for federal projects and the Court’s role in these matters. 

Background: The Seven County Infrastructure Coalition aimed to construct a railroad line from Utah’s Uinta Basin to the national freight rail network, which would connect the oil-rich basin to refineries along the Gulf Coast. As a result, the U.S. Surface Transportation Board was required by NEPA to create an EIS that considered effects to the environment and potential alternatives. The Board approved the rail line, and Eagle County and environmental organizations challenged the EIS for not fully considering impacts resulting from the development of the rail line. The D.C. Circuit found “numerous NEPA violations arising from the EIS” and vacated the Board’s final approval. 

The Court’s Decision: The Supreme Court reversed D.C. Circuit’s decision, holding that the Circuit had incorrectly interpreted NEPA to require consideration of other projects that are “separate in time or place” from the Uinta Basin Railway. The ruling finds that under NEPA, the EIS identifying environmental impacts and feasible alternatives are “purely procedural” and therefore are not required to consider other potential actions or projects that could arguably be related. 

A major consideration of the Court’s unanimous decision was that a court’s role is to confirm that the agency has considered environmental consequences and alternatives to the project. Furthermore, the decision stated that courts should defer to agency decisions on what is required consideration, particularly for indirect effects from the project at hand beyond those required. While in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo the Supreme Court determined that courts should not provide deference to agency interpretations of statute, Justice Kavanaugh makes the distinction that when agencies exercise discretion granted to them by laws like NEPA the courts should only look to whether the decision was reasonable and reasonably explained.

Impact on Counties: The Court’s decision indicates that NEPA environmental reviews challenged in court should be reviewed for full, detailed consideration of the environmental impacts of a proposed project, but courts should allow agencies to determine what falls within that scope. For counties, projects that require an EIS will encounter fewer legal challenges based on policy disagreements or objections to the scope of an EIS. As a result, frivolous lawsuits will be more difficult to file. 

The Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County, Colorado case will have lasting impacts on environmental impact statements required by NEPA and the role of courts in assuring the law is met. Both counties and federal agencies will be exposed to fewer lawsuits based on incomplete consideration of potential environmental impacts.