In a significant ruling Thursday, the Supreme Court has reined in judicial authority to block infrastructure projects based on environmental concerns. The 8-0 decision establishes clearer boundaries for courts reviewing federal agencies' environmental assessments under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
According to Fox News, the ruling centered on a Utah railway project designed to transport crude oil from the Uinta Basin to a national railway network. Justice Brett Kavanaugh authored the opinion, which establishes that courts must defer to federal agencies' environmental reviews unless they fall outside a "broad zone of reasonableness."
The decision comes amid the Trump administration's ongoing criticism of what it views as judicial overreach in infrastructure and environmental matters. The case, Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County, addressed whether federal agencies must consider environmental impacts beyond the specific project under review.
The controversy began when the Seven County Infrastructure Coalition (SCIC) sought approval from the Surface Transportation Board (STB) to construct an 88-mile railway in Utah for transporting crude oil. The federal agency conducted an environmental impact statement as required by law.
Opponents in Eagle County, Colorado challenged the review, arguing the STB failed to adequately consider all environmental effects, particularly those that might occur outside the immediate project area. They claimed this oversight violated NEPA requirements for comprehensive environmental assessment.
A D.C. Circuit Court initially ruled in favor of the opponents, ordering a more thorough environmental review before the project could proceed. This decision effectively halted the infrastructure development, prompting SCIC to petition the Supreme Court in March 2024.
Justice Kavanaugh's opinion clarified that NEPA does not require agencies to consider the environmental effects of separate projects, even if the current project might lead to their construction or increased use. The justices emphasized courts should not "micromanage" agency decisions.
"NEPA does not allow courts, 'under the guise of judicial review' of agency compliance with NEPA, to delay or block agency projects based on the environmental effects of other projects separate from the project at hand," Kavanaugh wrote in the opinion.
The ruling was joined in full by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Amy Coney Barrett. Justice Neil Gorsuch recused himself from the case, while Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson filed a separate concurring opinion.
Democratic Rep. Diana DeGette of Colorado voiced strong opposition to the decision, warning about potential long-term environmental damage resulting from the ruling. She specifically highlighted risks to the Colorado River.
"This decision lays the groundwork for an environmental catastrophe," DeGette said. "As the harsh impacts of the climate crisis increase the vulnerability of the Colorado River, the risk of an oil spill along this train route is unacceptable."
Environmental advocates fear the ruling could weaken environmental protections by limiting the scope of impact statements, potentially allowing projects with significant cumulative effects to proceed with less scrutiny. They argue this could particularly affect communities along transportation routes.
The ruling comes at a time when the Trump administration has repeatedly criticized what it describes as judicial overreach through universal injunctions that have blocked various executive policies. The administration has argued such sweeping judicial actions exceed proper court authority.
"Universal injunctions are an unconstitutional abuse of judicial power," Senator Charles Grassley, who chairs the Senate Judiciary Committee, told Fox News Digital earlier this month. He cited recent examples of district judges blocking presidential executive orders, arguing that "Judges are not policymakers."
The Supreme Court is expected to address the broader issue of universal injunctions in a separate case in the coming weeks. Legal experts suggest Thursday's decision signals the Court's willingness to place limits on judicial intervention in administrative matters.
