SCOTUS is hearing arguments on whether this could reshape environmental law

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments Tuesday on a case that could reshape the switch Environmental law And determining the future of the oil railway project in the West.

the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Requires federal agencies to conduct a review of environmental impacts before making any decisions and then issue a “detailed statement” of review.

SCOTUS heard arguments in Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County, to decide whether the agency is required to study environmental impacts beyond “the direct effects of an action over which the agency has regulatory authority.” The justices seemed open to reconsidering the scope of NEPA, but did not specify how to amend the law.

The Seven States Infrastructure Coalition (SCIC) has petitioned the Surface Transportation Board (STB), a federal agency, to build a more than 80-mile transportation system to connect crude oil from Utah’s Uinta Basin to the National Railroad.

Federal court overturns decades of environmental regulations

STB issued an environmental impact statement on the railroad, but opponents of the project in Eagle County, Colorado, argued that the federal agency had not taken into account all of its environmental impacts — and, therefore, violated NEPA.

The Supreme Court appears to be divided on state bans on transgender “treatments” for minors

The case went to the D.C. Circuit Court, which ruled that STB had violated environmental law and that a new, more comprehensive review would be conducted before the project moved forward. In March 2024, SCIC filed a petition with SCOTUS in this case.

Paul Clement, an attorney supporting the SCIC project, argued it was a “clear-cut case” and asked that NEPA be limited to “proximate cause” principles.

“NEPA is a self-described procedural law. It is designed to inform government decision-making, not paralyze it,” Clement said Tuesday.

Clement called the Washington, D.C., court’s request for further environmental review “a recipe for turning procedural law into a substantive impediment.”

“All of this is not only remote in time and space, but falls outside the limited remand of the STB, and falls within the purview of other agencies that can comprehensively and concretely address these issues if and when they arise,” he said during a press conference. Oral arguments.

Several judges He seemed to agree that the D.C. court’s issuance of an entirely new environmental review of the project may not have been necessary.

“It’s not a question of whether the court failed to consider something,” Justice Sonia Sotomayor said. “So the question before us is: Was it arbitrary and capricious not to think of something more?”

The justices asked Clement how his request would affect the scope of environmental reviews, such as for small or large projects.

“If the environmental impact statement is project-focused, it will benefit you — you can choose one path versus another, or the agency itself can impose mitigation measures,” Clement answered. “But, if you have to look at everything under the sun, that’s outside the agency’s scope.”

“This issue 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 will blind the public to the clear health consequences of government decisions. The court should adhere to settled law instead. If it does not, communities will pay the price.”

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

Justice Neil Gorsuch, on December 4, recused himself from the case before arguments.