Physical Address
304 North Cardinal St.
Dorchester Center, MA 02124
The Supreme Court heard oral arguments Tuesday in a case that could reshape a key environmental law and determine the future of an oil rail project in the west.
The National Environmental Policy Law (NEPA) requires federal agencies to conduct a review of environmental impacts before making any decision and then issue a “detailed statement” of the review.
SCOTUS heard arguments in Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County, to decide whether an agency must study environmental impacts beyond the “proximate effects of the action over which the agency has regulatory authority.” The justices appeared open to reconsidering NEPA’s reach, but did not specify how they would adjust the law.
The Seven Country Infrastructure Coalition (SCIC) asked the Surface Transportation Board (STB), a federal agency, to build a transportation system of more than 80 miles to connect crude oil from Utah’s Uinta Basin to a national railway.
FEDERAL COURT OVERRULES DECADES OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATIONS
Supreme Court members, front from left, Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Clarence Thomas, Chief Justice John Roberts, Justices Samuel Alito and Elena Kagan and, back from left, Justices Amy Coney Barrett, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Ketanji Brown Jackson in October. 7, 2022, in Washington, DC (Alex Wong/Getty Images)
The STB issued an Environmental Impact Statement on the railroad, but opponents of the project in Eagle County, Colorado, argued that the federal agency failed to consider all of its environmental effects, thereby violating the NEPA
SUPREME COURT APPEARS DIVIDED ON STATE BAN ON GENDER TRANSITION ‘TREATMENTS’ FOR MINORS
The case was taken to a D.C. circuit court, which ruled that STB had violated environmental law and that a new, more thorough review would be conducted before the project moved forward. In March 2024, SCIC petitioned SCOTUS in the case.
Paul Clement, the attorney backing the SCIC project, argued that this is a “simple case” and called for NEPA to be limited to “proximate cause” principles.
“NEPA is a self-described procedural statute. It’s designed to inform government decision-making, not paralyze it,” Clement argued Tuesday.
The Price River Terminal, a crude oil shipping terminal near Wellington, Utah. Crude oil is brought in by tankers and transferred to tank cars at this terminal. (Jon G. Fuller/Getty Images)
Clement called the D.C. court’s request to conduct additional environmental review “a recipe for turning a procedural statute into a substantive hurdle.”
“All of this is not only remote in time and space, but is very much outside of STB’s limited prevention, and it is up to other agencies to address these issues comprehensively and concretely if they arise.” , he said during the course. the oral arguments.
Various judges seemed to agree that the D.C. court’s issuance of an entirely new environmental review of the project may have been unnecessary.
“It’s not a matter of not looking at something,” said Judge Sonia Sotomayer. “So the question for us was: Was it arbitrary and capricious that he didn’t consider something else?”
Judges asked Clement about how his request would affect the scope of environmental reviews, such as smaller or larger projects.
The United States Supreme Court building in Washington, DC (Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)
Clement responded, “If the environmental impact statement focuses on the project, it will inform: You can choose one route against another, or the agency itself can impose mitigation measures. But if you have to look at everything under the sun , that’s outside the scope of the agency.”
“This case is bigger than the Uinta Basin Railroad,” Sam Sankar, vice president of programs at Earthjustice, said in a statement. “The fossil fuel industry and its allies are making radical arguments that would blind the public to the obvious health consequences of government decisions. The court should follow established law. If it doesn’t, communities will pay the price “.
CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP
Judge Neil Gorsuch on Dec. 4 recused himself from the case before arguments.
