Latest news with #NeilGorsuch
Yahoo
9 hours ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Supreme Court changes the game on federal environmental reviews
Getting federal approval for permits to build bridges, wind farms, highways and other major infrastructure projects has long been a complicated and time-consuming process. Despite growing calls from both parties for Congress and federal agencies to reform that process, there had been few significant revisions – until now. In one fell swoop, the U.S. Supreme Court has changed a big part of the game. Whether the effects are good or bad depends on the viewer's perspective. Either way, there is a new interpretation in place for the law that is the centerpiece of the debate about permitting – the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, known as NEPA. NEPA requires federal agencies to document and describe the environmental effects of any proposed action, including construction of oil pipelines, renewable energy and other infrastructure projects. Only after completing that work can the agency make a final decision to approve or deny the project. These reports must evaluate direct effects, such as the destruction of habitat to make way for a new highway, and indirect effects, such as the air pollution from cars using the highway after it is built. Decades of litigation about the scope of indirect effects have widened the required evaluation. As I explain it to my students, that logical and legal progression is reminiscent of the popular children's book 'If You Give a Mouse a Cookie,' in which granting a request for a cookie triggers a seemingly endless series of further requests – for a glass of milk, a napkin and so on. For the highway example, the arguments went, even if the agency properly assessed the pollution from the cars, it also had to consider the new subdivisions, malls and jobs the new highway foreseeably could induce. The challenge for federal agencies was knowing how much of that potentially limitless series of indirect effects courts would require them to evaluate. In recent litigation, the question in particular has been how broad a range of effects on and from climate change could be linked to any one specific project and therefore require evaluation. With the court's ruling, federal agencies' days of uncertainty are over. On May 29, 2025, the Supreme Court – minus Justice Neil Gorsuch, who had recused himself – decided the case of Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County, Colorado, the first major NEPA dispute before the court in 20 years. At issue was an 85-mile rail line a group of developers proposed to build in Utah to connect oil wells to the interstate rail network and from there transport waxy crude oil to refineries in Louisiana, Texas and elsewhere. The federal Surface Transportation Board reviewed the environmental effects and approved the required license in 2021. The report was 637 pages long, with more than 3,000 pages of appendices containing additional information. It acknowledged but did not give a detailed assessment of the indirect 'upstream' effects of constructing the rail line – such as spurring new oil drilling – and the indirect 'downstream' effects of the ultimate use of the waxy oil in places as far flung as Louisiana. In February 2022, Eagle County, Colorado, through which trains coming from the new railway would pass, along with the Center for Biological Diversity appealed that decision in federal court, arguing that the board had failed to properly explain why it did not assess those effects. Therefore, the county argued, the report was incomplete and the board license should be vacated. In August 2023, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit agreed and held that the agency had failed to adequately explain why it could not employ 'some degree of forecasting' to identify those impacts and that the board could prevent those effects by exercising its authority to deny the license. The railway developers appealed to the Supreme Court, asking whether NEPA requires a federal agency to look beyond the action being proposed to evalutate indirect effects outside its own jurisdiction. Writing for a five-justice majority, Justice Brett Kavanaugh delivered a ringing, table-pounding lecture about courts run amok. Kavanaugh did not stop to provide specific support for each admonition, describing NEPA as a 'legislative acorn' that has 'grown over the years into a judicial oak that has hindered infrastructure development.' He bemoaned the 'delay upon delay' NEPA imposes on projects as so complicated that it bordered 'on the Kafkaesque.' In his view, 'NEPA has transformed from a modest procedural requirement into a blunt and haphazard tool employed by project opponents.' He called for 'a course correction … to bring judicial review under NEPA back in line with the statutory text and common sense.' His opinion reset the course in three ways. First, despite the Supreme Court having recently reduced the deference courts must give to federal agency decisions in other contexts, Kavanaugh wrote that courts should give agencies strong deference when reviewing an agency's NEPA effects analyses. Because these assessments are 'fact-dependent, context-specific, and policy-laden choices about the depth and breadth of its inquiry … (c)ourts should afford substantial deference and should not micromanage those agency choices so long as they fall within a broad zone of reasonableness.' Second, Kavanaugh crafted a new rule saying that the review of one project did not need to consider the potential indirect effects of other related projects it could foreseeably induce, such as the rail line encouraging more drilling for oil. This limitation is especially relevant, Kavanaugh emphasized, when the effects are from projects over which the reviewing agency does not have jurisdiction. That applied in this case, because the board does not regulate oil wells or oil drilling. And third, Kavanaugh created something like a 'no harm – no foul' rule, under which 'even if an (environmental impact statement) falls short in some respects, that deficiency may not necessarily require a court to vacate the agency's ultimate approval of a project.' The strong implication is that courts should not overturn an agency decision unless its NEPA assessment has a serious flaw. The upshot for the project at hand was that the Supreme Court deferred to the board's decision that it could not reliably predict the rail line's effects on oil drilling or use of the oil transported. And the fact that the agency had no regulatory power over those separate issues reinforced the idea that those concerns were outside the scope of the board's required review. Although Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, wrote that she would have reached the same end result and upheld the agency permit, her proposed test is far narrower. By her reading, the federal law creating the Surface Transportation Board restricted it from considering the broader indirect effects of the rail line. But her finding would be relevant only for any federal agencies whose governing statutes were similarly restrictive. By contrast, Kavanaugh's 'course correction' applies to judicial review of NEPA findings for all federal agencies. Though the full effects remain to be seen, this decision significantly changes the legal landscape of environmental reviews of major projects. Agencies will have more latitude to shorten the causal chain of indirect effects they consider – and to exclude them entirely if they flow from separate projects beyond the agency's regulatory control. Now, for example, if a federal agency is considering an application to build a new natural gas power plant, the review must still include its direct greenhouse gas emissions and their effects on the climate. But emissions that could result from additional gas extraction and transportation projects to fuel the power plant, and any climate effects from whatever the produced electricity is used for, are now clearly outside the agency's required review. And if the agency voluntarily decided to consider any of those effects, courts would have to defer to its analysis, and any minor deficiencies would be inconsequential. That is a far cry from how the legal structure around the National Environmental Policy Act has worked for decades. For lawyers, industry, advocacy groups and the courts, environmental review after the Eagle County decision is not just a new ballgame; it is a new sport. This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit, independent news organization bringing you facts and trustworthy analysis to help you make sense of our complex world. It was written by: J.B. Ruhl, Vanderbilt University Read more: Why the federal government must act cautiously on fast-tracking project approvals Will faster federal reviews speed up the clean energy shift? Two legal scholars explain what the National Environmental Policy Act does and doesn't do Supreme Court could narrow the scope of federal environmental reviews, with less consideration of how projects would contribute to climate change J.B. Ruhl does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Wall Street Journal
a day ago
- General
- Wall Street Journal
Four Justices for AR-15s . . . Next Time
Is the AR-15 rifle protected by the Second Amendment? The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals last year said no in a doubtful opinion written by the redoubtable conservative Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III. On Monday the Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal of that ruling, while sending an unmistakable message to Second Amendment advocates: Ask again later. The oddity is that it takes four Justices to accept a case, and four chose to go on record here. Justices Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch stated that they would have heard the Fourth Circuit appeal, Snope v. Brown. Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a longer dissent from the denial. 'The State of Maryland prohibits ownership of AR-15s, the most popular civilian rifle in America,' he begins. Then he casts shade on the Fourth Circuit's 'surprising conclusion' that 'AR-15s are not 'arms' protected by the Second Amendment.' That's three Justices. The fourth is Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who issued a 'statement' tipping his hand. AR-15s are legal in 41 states, he says, and Americans own 20 million to 30 million of them. The Snope petitioners therefore 'have a strong argument that AR-15s are in 'common use' by law-abiding citizens and therefore are protected by the Second Amendment.' He calls the Fourth Circuit's contrary ruling 'questionable.'
Yahoo
a day ago
- General
- Yahoo
Supreme Court allows AR-15 ban in Maryland
The Supreme Court on Monday turned away an appeal by a group of gun rights advocates seeking to overturn Maryland's ban on assault-style rifles and high-capacity magazines under the Second Amendment. The decision, a major win for gun safety advocates, leaves in place a ruling by the Fourth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals which ruled that the state may constitutionally prohibit sale and possession of the weapons. The state legislation, enacted in 2013 after the Sandy Hook elementary school shooting, specifically targets the AR-15 -- the most popular rifle in America with 20-30 million in circulation. They are legal in 41 of the 50 states. Justices Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas dissented from the decision, saying they would have taken up the case to decide the issue nationwide. Legal challenges to other state bans remain pending in lower courts. "I would not wait to decide whether the government can ban the most popular rifle in America," Justice Thomas wrote. "The question is of critical importance to tens of millions of law-abiding AR-15 owners throughout the country." Justice Brett Kavanaugh agreed with the court's decision to let the Maryland law stand, for now, but wrote separately to call the appeals court ruling "questionable." Kavanaugh said that he expects the high court to weigh in formally on the legality of the AR-15 in the "next term or two." MORE: Supreme Court battle spotlights guns trafficked from US into Mexico Maryland has seen a decline in gun violence since the enactment of a series of laws aimed at curbing access to dangerous weapons. Officials particularly credit a series of federal, state and local restrictions imposed on gun kits in 2022 and 2023 with slowing online sales of untraceable firearms, requiring background and age checks of buyers and banning some kit sales in Maryland altogether. While the Supreme Court's conservative majority has issued rulings expanding the rights of gun owners, recent decisions have underscored support for some longstanding restrictions. In June 2024, the high court upheld a ban on firearm purchases and possession by Americans under domestic violence restraining orders. Earlier this year the Court also upheld federal regulations targeting ghost guns.
a day ago
- Politics
Supreme Court allows AR-15 ban in Maryland
The Supreme Court on Monday turned away an appeal by a group of gun rights advocates seeking to overturn Maryland 's ban on assault-style rifles and high-capacity magazines under the Second Amendment. The decision, a major win for gun safety advocates, leaves in place a ruling by the Fourth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals which ruled that the state may constitutionally prohibit sale and possession of the weapons. The state legislation, enacted in 2013 after the Sandy Hook elementary school shooting, specifically targets the AR-15 -- the most popular rifle in America with 20-30 million in circulation. They are legal in 41 of the 50 states. Justices Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas dissented from the decision, saying they would have taken up the case to decide the issue nationwide. Legal challenges to other state bans remain pending in lower courts. "I would not wait to decide whether the government can ban the most popular rifle in America," Justice Thomas wrote. "The question is of critical importance to tens of millions of law-abiding AR-15 owners throughout the country." Justice Brett Kavanaugh agreed with the court's decision to let the Maryland law stand, for now, but wrote separately to call the appeals court ruling "questionable." Kavanaugh said that he expects the high court to weigh in formally on the legality of the AR-15 in the "next term or two." Maryland has seen a decline in gun violence since the enactment of a series of laws aimed at curbing access to dangerous weapons. Officials particularly credit a series of federal, state and local restrictions imposed on gun kits in 2022 and 2023 with slowing online sales of untraceable firearms, requiring background and age checks of buyers and banning some kit sales in Maryland altogether. While the Supreme Court's conservative majority has issued rulings expanding the rights of gun owners, recent decisions have underscored support for some longstanding restrictions. In June 2024, the high court upheld a ban on firearm purchases and possession by Americans under domestic violence restraining orders. Earlier this year the Court also upheld federal regulations targeting ghost guns.
Yahoo
a day ago
- General
- Yahoo
Supreme Court Finally Does Something Good on Guns—for Now
On Monday, the Supreme refused to hear two significant cases challenging Maryland's state-wide ban on semiautomatic rifles and other assault-style weapons like AR-15s. The court's rejection of the cases, a somewhat surprising move for the conservative majority, means that the gun control law will stay in place—for now. The court also refused to hear a challenge to Rhode Island's restrictions on high-capacity magazines. Four Supreme Court justices are needed to hear a case. Justices Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, and Samuel Alito wrote a dissenting opinion on the Maryland case, arguing that it wasn't consistent with the Supreme Court's conservative 2022 ruling that the right to bear arms extends outside the home, which loosened gun restrictions and caused states like Maryland and Rhode Island to enact bans like the ones being challenged in court. Justice Brett Kavanaugh, the other conservative justice, wrote his own dissenting statement, calling the Maryland ban an 'outlier' and positing ominously that 'this court should and presumably will address the AR-15 issue soon.'
