SCOTUS hears arguments in case they reform environmental law

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments Tuesday in a case that could reshape a key environmental law and decide the future of the western oil rail project.

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires federal agencies to conduct an environmental impact review before making any decisions and issue a “detailed statement” of the review.

SCOTUS heard arguments in Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County, to determine whether the agency is required to study the environmental impact of these “proximate effects of an action over which the agency has jurisdiction.” The justices appeared open to reconsidering NEPA’s scope, but did not specify how they would amend the law.

The Seven Country Infrastructure Coalition (SCIC) has petitioned the Surface Transportation Board (STB), a federal agency, to build a transportation system of more than 80 miles to connect crude oil from the Uinta Basin to the Uinta National Railroad.

FEDERAL COURT CONSIDERS DECADES OF NATURAL LAWS

The STB issued an Environmental Impact Statement for the railroad, but opponents of the project in Eagle County, Colorado, argued that the federal agency did not consider all of its environmental effects — and therefore, violated NEPA.

SUPREME COURT IS DIVIDED OVER GOVERNMENT’S BLOCK OF CHURCH CHANGE ‘SPEECH’ TO CHILDREN

The case was brought to the DC Circuit Court, which ruled that the STB had violated environmental law and that a new, comprehensive review should be conducted before the project could move forward. In March 2024, SCIC appealed to SCOTUS in the case.

Paul Clement, a lawyer behind the SCIC project, argued that it was a “straightforward case” and called for NEPA to be limited to “closer” regulations.

“NEPA is a self-explanatory law. It’s meant to inform government decisions, not cripple them,” Clement said Tuesday.

Price River Terminal, a crude oil shipping facility near Wellington, Utah. Crude oil is delivered by tank trucks and transferred to rail tank cars at this terminal. (Jon G. Fuller/Getty Images)

Clement called the D.C. court’s request to continue the environmental review “a way to turn procedural law into a major roadblock.”

“All of that is not only far away in time and space but falls well outside the STB’s limited sentence – deportation, and is under the authority of other agencies that can deal with these issues fully and clearly if and when they arise,” he said at the time. oral arguments.

Several judges appeared to agree that the DC court’s issuance of a completely new environmental review of the project may not have been necessary.

“It’s not a question of whether there was a failure to observe something,” said Judge Sonia Sotomayer. “So the question before us was, was it unreasonable and reasonable for him not to consider something else?”

The judges asked Clement questions about how his application will affect the environmental review, such as small or large projects.

The US Supreme Court building in Washington, DC (Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)

Clement replied, “If the environmental impact statement is focused on the project, we will inform you – you can choose one route over another, or the agency itself can put in place mitigation measures. But, if you have to look at everything under the sun, that’s without the agency.”

“This case is bigger than the Uinta Basin Railway,” Sam Sankar, Earthjustice’s vice president of programs, said in a statement. “The oil industry and its supporters are making strong statements that can blind the public to the obvious health consequences of government decisions. The court must uphold the amended law. If it doesn’t, communities will pay the price.”

CLICK HERE FOR THE FOX NEWS PROGRAM

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