The eventual ruling in the case Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County could clarify whether federal agencies must evaluate the environmental effects of decisions they make, even if that involves addressing ramifications that go beyond the agencies’ jurisdiction and expertise — a question pivotal for infrastructure development like roads and highways or efforts to prevent overcrowding in national parks. It could also set the tone for how federal agencies address the effects of federal development projects on the climate under the incoming Trump administration, as Trump himself has criticized the law as stalling construction.
The justices are deciding whether the Surface Transportation Board should have considered damages to the overall environment when approving an 87-mile railway connecting Utah’s crude oil refineries in the Uinta Basin to the national rail networks.
The railway would enable transport to Gulf Coast refineries, but opponents argue that NEPA requires analysis of “upstream” and “downstream” effects, such as effects on the environment and greenhouse gas emissions, outside of the scope of the agency
The Supreme Court fight is reflective of a common obstacle many Republicans, including President-elect Donald Trump, have cited as problematic for fulfilling large-scale infrastructure projects.
“They could stop you cold with the environmental impact study stuff,” Trump told podcaster Joe Rogan in late October, referring to NEPA.
The legal debate over NEPA’s reach
NEPA mandates that agencies study the environmental impacts of projects requiring federal permits. But in the 2004 decision Department of Transportation v. Public Citizen, the Supreme Court ruled agencies are not obligated to assess effects they lack statutory authority to prevent.
The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, however, held that Public Citizen does not apply to the STB because its authority includes determining whether a project serves the “public interest,” which encompasses environmental considerations. Critics of NEPA say this interpretation risks transforming the law into a broad climate policy tool — a role Congress never intended.
“The advocates in Seven County generally agree that the court can make NEPA analyses significantly easier or harder depending on its view of the scope of agency authority,” Michael Drysdale, an environmental law expert at Dorsey & Whitney, told the Washington Examiner.
Because NEPA is purely procedural, the practical issues in Seven County “are time and project risk,” Drysdale said, adding, “The more indirect and remote the impacts of a project are that an agency must study, the longer and more costly the study will be, and the more likely a reviewing court will require more analysis.”
Wyatt Kendall, a partner at Morris, Manning & Martin, sees the case as a turning point for numerous infrastructure projects that have been stalled and delayed due to bureaucratic hurdles imposed under NEPA.
“The Court is anticipated to adopt a narrow review of federal agency power and limit the extent of impacts required to be considered under NEPA. If that happens, this case could be a boon for many infrastructure projects seeking government approval,” Kendall said.
Implications for energy policy
The case comes as the U.S. faces mounting energy challenges. Critics say that excessive red tape and litigation under NEPA have slowed critical infrastructure development, raising costs and jeopardizing energy expansion.
Drysdale said the case brings to the forefront the “recurring problem of boundary setting for environmental reviews” under NEPA.
“For any NEPA analysis, the responsible agencies must decide what environmental effects over what physical area and time are relevant to their decisions and should be studied,” Drysdale added.
The Supreme Court’s conservative majority has shown a willingness to limit regulatory overreach. Recent rulings in West Virginia v. EPA and Sackett v. EPA narrowed agency authority under other environmental statutes.
If the majority follows a similar trajectory, Seven County could curb the scope of environmental reviews, making it easier for projects such as pipelines, railways, and power plants to proceed.
NEPA’s procedural pitfalls
The case also highlights the murky legal foundation of NEPA regulations.
The White House Council on Environmental Quality issued guidelines in 1978 requiring agencies to study the “cumulative effects” of government projects on the environment under NEPA. However, courts have treated these as binding rules, even though NEPA delegates no rulemaking authority to CEQ.
CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER
The Roberts Court has increasingly scrutinized such administrative overreach, raising the possibility it could also address this issue.
As the Trump administration prepares to take office, its deregulatory agenda may align with a ruling that streamlines NEPA reviews, reducing litigation risks for energy projects.
