Supreme Court limits environmental impact studies, expediting infrastructure projects
The decision in Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County was 8-0. (Justice Neil Gorsuch recused from the case but did not explain his decision.)
The dispute, the first of its kind in 20 years to reach the court, focused on the purpose of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, which requires federal agencies to study the significant environmental effects of a project and identify alternatives to mitigate any harms.
The law, known as NEPA, has been the basis of major litigation by groups opposed to particular projects, which frequently sue to block construction by alleging that the impact study was incomplete or inaccurate.
Industry groups have long complained about years, even decades, of costly delays to get projects completed.
MORE: Trump asks Supreme Court to remove judge-ordered restrictions on 3rd-country deportations
Acknowledging those concerns, Justice Brett Kavanaugh writing for the majority said use of NEPA to stymie energy and infrastructure programs has gotten out of hand and needs to be curtailed.
"A 1970 legislative acorn has grown over the years into a judicial oak that has hindered infrastructure development under the guise of just a little more process," Kavanaugh wrote. "A course correction of sorts is appropriate to bring judicial review under NEPA back in line with the statutory text and common sense. "
Kavanaugh said the law imposed merely a "modest procedural requirement," related only to the project at hand, not a mandatory study of possible upstream or downstream impacts far afield from actual construction.
The proposed 88-mile railway at the heart of the case, linking the oil-rich Uinta Basin of Utah with the national rail network in Colorado, has undergone years of environmental study. Its impact statement exceeds 3,600 pages of analysis.
Environmental groups challenged the study, however, saying it failed to consider secondary impacts of exporting millions of gallons of oil to refineries along the Gulf, such as the risk of oil spills in the Colorado River, pollution in the Gulf and greenhouse gas contributions to climate change. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit agreed.
MORE: Supreme Court blocks Oklahoma from launching taxpayer-funded religious charter school
The groups told the Supreme Court that approving the railway could also mean heightened risk of oil spills, train spark-induced wildfires and enhanced greenhouse gas emissions nationwide.
Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser, who opposes the railway project, lamented the high court decision in a statement, saying the court had approved a "risky scheme to transport waxy crude oil along the Colorado River, right alongside our most critical water resource and posing major risks to Colorado's Western Slope communities."
The Seven County Infrastructure Coalition, which supports the railway, said those downstream risks are too far afield and beyond the scope of the law and that the project has fallen victim of bureaucratic red tape.
"The effects from a separate project may be factually foreseeable, but that does not mean that those effects are relevant to the agency's decision making process or that it is reasonable to hold the agency responsible for those effects," Kavanaugh wrote. "In those circumstances, the causal chain is too attenuated."
The opinion said judges should show "deference" to the agency officials preparing the environmental impact statement.
Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson concurred with the judgment but wrote separately to explain their reasoning.
MORE: Chief Justice John Roberts makes rare public appearance, defends judicial independence
Proponents of the rail line, who have pitched it as an economic boon for the country, say it will help extract hundreds of thousands of gallons of waxy crude oil and drive down energy prices for consumers.
"The Supreme Court has issued an important corrective to the current judicial approach to the National Environmental Policy Act," said University of Minnesota Law School professor James Coleman, who specializes in energy and transportation law, "demanding more deference from courts for the agencies performing judicial review and explaining why it is inappropriate to demand agencies to consider the upstream and downstream effects of energy transport projects."
Supreme Court limits environmental impact studies, expediting infrastructure projects originally appeared on abcnews.go.com
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
6 hours ago
- Yahoo
Grants Pass to provide 150 camping spaces, $60k in services after disability rights suit
The city of Grants Pass, which gained national attention for its practice of punishing homeless people for camping outside, has agreed to provide at least 150 spaces for individuals to do so. (Ben Botkin/Oregon Capital Chronicle) A southern Oregon city that gained national attention for its practice of punishing homeless people for camping outside has agreed to provide at least 150 spaces for individuals to do so after a lawsuit alleged its practices discriminated against disabled individuals. The city of Grants Pass won a major U.S. Supreme Court case in June 2024, reversing an earlier appeals court ruling that a city ordinance barring homeless people from using blankets, pillows or cardboard while sleeping outside violated the U.S. Constitution's protections against cruel and unusual punishment. That Supreme Court ruling cleared the way for more stringent restrictions on homeless individuals in the West, but in Oregon, a state law only allows cities to regulate sleeping outside if those regulations are 'objectively reasonable' to time, place and manner. Grants Pass responded by passing ordinances that allow people to stay in designated areas only between 5 p.m. and 7 a.m. and to remove tents or other supplies each morning or face a $75 citation. Disability rights advocates and five homeless individuals sued, and the city reached a settlement this month. The settlement says the city will offer at least 150 units of camping spaces for homeless individuals. The city must also provide drinking water at any approved camping sites, and the property must be in compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act for the next year. 'Oregon can't arrest its way out of homelessness, and we are pleased the city has committed to developing more humane and legally compliant approaches to this public health crisis,' said Jake Cornett, executive director and CEO of the Portland-based Disability Rights Oregon, in a statement. 'This settlement represents a significant step forward in ensuring people with disabilities experiencing homelessness have places to rest, basic necessities like drinking water and real opportunity to stabilize their lives.' The city had limited homeless people to stay and sleep in just one site with about 30 tents at any given time, prompting concerns about overcrowding and a lack of drinking water. In January, local officials closed another site with space for about 120 tents. Disability Rights Oregon and the Oregon Law Center cited Oregon's anti-discrimination law for disabled individuals in their January lawsuit. They won a two-week temporary restraining order in February prohibiting the city from enforcing penalties and restricting camping to the city's one site for tents. Since then, Circuit Court Judge Sarah E. McGlaughlin has ordered the city to halt enforcement of its ordinances against homeless encampments until the city restored capacity for 150 tents, exempting several parks from her mandate. The city and plaintiffs have agreed that the additional capacity for campaign will be on property owned by the city or operated by a third-party city contractor, according to the settlement. The city will also install shade at drinking facilities and award a $60,000 grant to a local nonprofit to provide services for homeless residents. The facility receiving the money must have bathrooms. The lawsuit launched by disability rights advocates was driven by stories of homeless people with chronic pain and health conditions being forced to constantly move their belongings and lives every day in the city. One such case involves 57-year-old Janine Harris, who suffers from arthritis, vertigo and chronic headaches. She previously told the Capital Chronicle that her health problems made her give up a job as a caregiver and she has been homeless for four years. She has to collect her belongings in a wagon she carries around. 'Being homeless is really hard on a person's body, especially if you have physical disabilities,'Harris wrote in a court declaration. 'I just want everyone to know that a lot of people who are living outside are people, just like them, who are doing their best to get by.' In a statement following the settlement, Allison Nasson, a staff attorney at the Oregon Law Center, cautioned against policies mandating homeless residents continuously relocate. 'Requiring people to 'move along' everyday doesn't get people into housing, it just makes life harder and more dangerous,' she wrote. 'When you have been forced to live outside, you still need water, a bathroom, and a place to rest.' Grants Pass City Manager Aaron Cubic did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Under the agreement, the city will also pay $85,000 to Disability Rights Oregon, allowing it to forgo any further obligation to pay legal fees. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX Solve the daily Crossword
Yahoo
9 hours ago
- Yahoo
4 years and 3 court cases later, City of Prince George wins case to shut down homeless camp
The City of Prince George has won its latest bid to close a downtown homeless encampment that has been a political football ever since it was first established in 2021. The ruling was handed down this week by B.C. Supreme Court Justice Bruce Elwood and distributed to the media by the city. It found that the city has significantly increased the number of available shelter spaces and affordable housing units in the north-central B.C. city, which serves a population of approximately 90,000. It agreed that the city had demonstrated plans were in place to further increase the available housing units in order to accommodate the remaining residents in the camp, who, it was agreed in court, number approximately 20. However, Elwood also ruled that the city must be prepared to allow for overnight sheltering for residents who are unable to find available supports elsewhere. "Today's decision doesn't solve homelessness," said Eric Depenau, the city's manager of administrative services, at a Friday afternoon news conference at city hall. "We have done good work... but we know that more needs to be done." The city said that moving forward, those who were living in the camp as of July will be allowed to remain until they receive an offer of housing, at which point they will have seven days to vacate. Any newcomers seeking outdoor shelter will be allowed to stay at 498 Ottawa Street, a smaller lot in the current encampment, between 7 p.m. and 9 a.m. The city says it will now be using a "phased approach" to close and remediate the encampment site. The ruling marks what may be the final chapter in an issue that has highlighted the growing visibility of homelessness in communities outside of Canada's major metro areas over the past decade. Previous shutdown attempts failed The encampment on Lower Patricia Boulevard, known as Moccasin Flats, was first established in the spring of 2021 on city-owned land, on an empty dirt lot between an industrial yard and a steep hill leading to a residential neighbourhood. Over the years, its population has fluctuated from fewer than a dozen to close to 100. Though homelessness had previously been an issue in the city, it was the first time in recent memory that a permanent encampment housing such a large population had been seen in Prince George, which bills itself as B.C.'s northern capital, and has sparked a multi-year debate about how best to handle its presence. WATCH | City back in court over homeless camp: While expressing sympathy for the plight of those who lived there, many nearby residents raised concerns about public safety and disorder stemming from the presence of the camp, which have included shootings and multiple fires consistent with arson attempts. At the same time, camp residents and outreach groups pointed out the greatest danger was to those who had nowhere else to go, and argued the camp was necessary as long as there weren't enough viable options for indoor sleeping available. It was also pointed out by groups, including the B.C. Assembly of First Nations, that a majority of encampment residents were Indigenous, many with direct family ties to residential schools, and could not be treated as a simple public safety issue. WATCH | BCAFN Chief Terry Teegee protests homeless camp eviction in Prince George: That argument first made its way to the B.C. Supreme Court in August 2021, when the city applied for an injunction to shut the camp down. But in October, Chief Justice Christopher E. Hinkson ruled the city had failed to prove there were viable alternatives to the camp, and ordered it to be allowed to stand. The ruling was upheld in a 2022 decision, after the city partially demolished a portion of the camp, which a separate justice said was in violation of the Hinkson ruling. The city later apologized. During this time, the encampment caught the attention of then-B.C. housing minister David Eby, who said he didn't believe permanent homeless camps were a safe or viable option and offered to collaborate with the city on finding a more permanent solution. After becoming premier, Eby announced Prince George as one of the first cities to pilot his new HEART and HEARTH programs, which were billed as a way to "rapidly respond to encampments to better support people sheltering outdoors to move inside." New units built during this time include the new transitional housing facility in Atco trailers on Third Avenue near the encampment and complex care spaces available a few blocks away. Phased shutdown In his ruling released Friday, Justice Elwood noted the change in the city's approach to homelessness over the past four years. "Much has changed since the city failed to persuade [the courts] that there was sufficient available housing in 2021," he wrote. "The HEART & HEARTH initiative, the memorandum of understanding between the province and the city and the construction of the Third Avenue Site all reflect tangible progress and concerted efforts by government to address the needs of the occupants of the encampment." However, he noted he was still unable to be certain that the new shelter spaces would be accessible to everyone currently living in the encampment. For one, he found that the units currently available are fewer than the number of people — between 10 and 20 — living in the encampment. Lawyer Claire Kanigan and co-counsel Casey St. Germain, representing residents of Moccasin Flats, said they found there to be at least 18 residents remaining at the encampment and said there are only three rooms currently ready to be occupied at the Thrd Avenue site. Kanigan said there's no timeline as to when more beds will be made available and that the city should be able to prove they have enough beds before they're permitted to close the site. "The basic calculation of number of beds to number of people is foundational," she said. "It is not an overly onerous burden to meet." But Elwood found the proposed solution from the city and B.C. Housing was reasonable — in which the camp would be allowed to stay open until its residents had been offered housing — and was enough to move forward. Outdoor sheltering must still be allowed: judge Another issue raised in the ruling, though, was city bylaws that have been passed barring overnight outdoor sheltering elsewhere in the city, as well as limiting daytime camping. With the closure of Moccasin Flats, Elwood wrote, the impact would be that "there will be nowhere in Prince George where a homeless person can lawfully erect shelter from the elements, store their possessions or even rest during the day," he wrote. "The potential lack of basic shelter during the day is an important consideration year-round. Extreme daytime heat during the summer is also dangerous for people experiencing homelessness. Those who have no other accessible option must be allowed to rest and shelter themselves." As a result, he said, the terms of his ruling "cannot be absolute" and exceptions must be made, however rare, for residents who cannot access other shelter. Mayor Simon Yu, who was elected in 2022 in part on a promise to build housing for people living in the encampment, said he remains committed to the goal of resolving homelessness in the city for good. "It has been a long road and there is much more work to be done to address homelessness in our community," he said in a written statement.
Axios
12 hours ago
- Axios
Private nuke waste storage in NM seen as "impossible" in near term
A company seeking to open a temporary storage site for commercial nuclear waste acknowledged that New Mexico's political opposition has at least temporarily clouded its prospects. Why it matters: Holtec International said a Supreme Court ruling in June over waste storage reaffirmed the company's license from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to pursue the site in southeastern New Mexico. Driving the news: Holtec, however, said in a July 28 letter to the project's local supporters that opposition from the New Mexico Legislature and Democratic Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham was a hindrance. "Unfortunately, the passage of state legislation that effectively prohibits the construction of the [site], combined with the continued public opposition expressed by New Mexico's current administration, has made further advancement of the project impossible in the near future," William F. Gill, Holtec's vice president and senior counsel, said in the letter. Lujan Grisham's predecessor, Republican Susana Martinez, backed the project. But state lawmakers passed a law in 2023 seeking to block it. Gill said the company would seek to terminate a revenue-sharing agreement with the Eddy-Lea Energy Alliance, the local group backing the project. The agreement would give the alliance a share of the project's revenue once the facility was operational in exchange for land. Zoom in: Holtec spokesman Patrick O'Brien said in a statement that the project isn't doomed and "remains a viable part of the solution" to spent fuel accumulating at nuclear reactor sites. "The two parties, with a nearly decade-long relationship, have discussed options available moving forward on both the revenue sharing and land purchase aspects under the current agreement, and will continue to do so," he said. Lujan Grisham — who has expressed repeated fears that a temporary site could become permanent — is term-limited and leaves office in January 2027. Catch up fast: The Supreme Court ruled in June that Texas and oil interests can't challenge the NRC's permit for a separate privately owned temporary nuclear waste storage site not far from Holtec's.
