Supreme Court Curbs Scope of Environmental Reviews

New York Times

3 days ago

The Supreme Court unanimously ruled on Thursday that a federal agency had done enough to consider the environmental impact of a proposed 88-mile railway in Utah. The ruling limits the scope of environmental reviews required by federal law in all sorts of settings.
The proposed railway would connect oil fields in the Uinta Basin in northeast Utah to a national rail network that runs next to the Colorado River and then to refineries on the Gulf Coast.
'An agency may weigh environmental consequences as the agency reasonably sees fit,' Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh wrote for five justices. The court's three liberal members agreed with the decision's bottom line but on narrower grounds. Justice Neil M. Gorsuch was recused.
The Surface Transportation Board, a federal agency that regulates rail transportation, approved the Utah project in 2021 after conducting a review that yielded a 3,600-page report. Environmental groups and a Colorado county sued, saying the report had not taken account of some ways in which the railway could do harm to the environment.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled for the challengers.
The environmental impact statements required by a 1970 federal law, the National Environmental Policy Act, can be quite elaborate. Paul D. Clement, a lawyer representing seven Utah counties that support the project, told the justices when the case was argued in December that the law was 'the single most litigated environmental statute.'
He added that the board had acted responsibly.
'It consulted with dozens of agencies, considered every proximate effect and ordered 91 mitigation measures,' he said, referring to measures intended to, among other things, dampen noise pollution and protect wildlife. 'Eighty-eight miles of track should not require more than 3,600 pages of environmental analysis.'
William M. Jay, a lawyer for the challengers, said at the argument that the report did not consider all the reasonably foreseeable results of the project, like oil spills and sparks that can cause wildfires, as required by the federal law.
The case, Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County, Colo., No. 23-975, was argued before an eight-member court after Justice Gorsuch recused himself, apparently over concerns that his ties to Philip F. Anschutz gave rise to a conflict of interest. Neither Mr. Anschutz, a billionaire and Republican donor, nor his companies are parties to the case, and the letter announcing Justice Gorsuch's recusal gave no reasons.
But the proposed railway could benefit companies in which Mr. Anschutz has an interest. Justice Gorsuch represented Mr. Anschutz and his companies as a lawyer, benefited from his support when he was being considered for a seat on an appeals court and once served as a keynote speaker at an annual party at his ranch.