CHEYENNE — The U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark — and unanimous — decision to rein in the scope of environmental reviews of major infrastructure projects is a victory against federal governmental overreach, said Wyoming Gov. Mark Gordon.
Gordon applauded the decision, calling it a welcome ruling that addresses the misuse of environmental law to obstruct development.
The court ruled 8-0 in Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County, Colorado, that under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), federal agencies are not required to consider the environmental effects of projects that are separate in time or place from the infrastructure project under review.
Specifically in this case, the court found a railroad line in Utah transporting oil could be approved without doing environmental impact studies in Louisiana and Texas, where the oil might one day be refined.
"This is a welcome decision and fits exactly with my longstanding belief that NEPA has been co-opted to obstruct development wherever and whenever," Gordon said in a statement. "Its valuable use as a tool to understand the environmental impacts of proposed actions has been diminished."
The case centered on an 88-mile railroad line proposed in northeastern Utah's Uinta Basin that would connect the oil-rich region to the national freight rail network, facilitating transportation of crude oil to refineries along the Gulf Coast. The U.S. Surface Transportation Board approved the project in December 2021 after preparing a 3,600-page environmental impact statement.
However, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals vacated both the environmental review and the board's approval, ruling that the analysis should have more extensively examined the environmental effects of increased upstream oil drilling in the Uinta Basin and downstream oil refining along the Gulf Coast.
Writing for the majority, Justice Brett Kavanaugh reversed the appeals court decision, emphasizing that NEPA is "a purely procedural statute" that requires agencies to focus on the environmental effects of "the project at hand — not other future or geographically separate projects."
The court stressed that federal agencies deserve "substantial deference" in determining the scope and content of environmental impact statements, and that courts should not "micromanage those agency choices so long as they fall within a broad zone of reasonableness."
The majority opinion criticized how NEPA has "transformed from a modest procedural requirement into a blunt and haphazard tool employed by project opponents" to delay infrastructure projects, noting this has resulted in "fewer and more expensive railroads, airports, wind turbines, transmission lines, dams, housing developments, highways, bridges, subways" and other infrastructure.
Wyoming And Co.
Rep. Harriet Hageman joined Gordon in praising the decision.
“Environmentalists for years destroyed development in the U.S., aided by judicial misapplication of NEPA,” said Hageman, who is also an attorney. “Today’s unanimous Supreme Court decision properly restores Congressional intent, meaning completed projects, not further delays.”
Wyoming joined 23 other states in filing an amicus brief supporting the petitioners in September 2024.
"I applaud the Supreme Court for correctly recognizing that this law has been abused for too long and for resetting it so it may no longer be utilized as a roadblock to responsible use of our resources," Gordon said in his statement.
Joining Gordon in cheering on the Supreme Court for its decision in this case was William Perry Pendley, former acting head of the Bureau of Land Management.
“It's a huge victory for the rule of law,” said Pendley, underlining the impact this decision will have for future energy development work in Wyoming.
“Wyoming has incredible natural resources, oil and gas and coal and the potential for development in nuclear power, strategic and critical minerals, rare earth minerals, tremendous in Wyoming that are very important to the country,” said Pendley.
“But over the decades, what has happened with that statute was it was just turned into a way to kill projects. And the law says that judges have to make sure the agency took a hard look,” explained Pendley, describing how in this case, NEPA was used by opponents of a 88 miles of railroad in northeastern Utah to overreach and call for the study of far flung and unrelated issues and areas.
“Now, Wyoming wants to have nuclear power,” he said. “It's going to have this new gas discovery you've got there in the near the Jonah Field. That will not be delayed. President Trump and (Department of the Interior) Secretary Bergen, they're going to be able to do the study that's required under the law, but nothing more.”
Michael Pearlman, spokesperson for Gordon, agreed the decision is a significant one for Wyoming.
“I know that NEPA requirements have led to delays in infrastructure projects and made them more expensive,” said Pearlman. “One example might be the TransWest Express Transmission Project.”
“I can also tell you that many of the lawsuits in which Wyoming challenges federal actions are NEPA-related,” added Pearlman. “Today's ruling will become part of the case law that can be used when Wyoming engages in legal challenges on natural resource policy issues.”
Bedrock Crack?
Earth Justice, one of many conservation organizations that’s well-versed in NEPA and its role in lawsuits and future commercial development of public land, responded sternly to the 8-0 Supreme Court decision.
In a statement Thursday, the group declared, “The Supreme Court just weakened a bedrock environmental law.”
“The Supreme Court undermined the principle that the government must consider predictable environmental harms before approving big projects,” the group said in a statement.
Earth Justice also called NEPA a “common-sense approach, which protects both people and the environment from ill-conceived proposals.”
Sotomayor’s Take
Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote a separate opinion concurring in the unanimous ruling, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson.
She agreed with the result, but emphasized that agencies need only consider environmental impacts for which their decisions would be "responsible.”
She used a tort law comparison to explain that agencies are only responsible for environmental impacts that are closely enough connected to their decision— similar to how in tort law, defendants are only liable for harms that are proximately caused by their actions, not for every possible consequence that might flow from their conduct.
Justice Neil Gorsuch recused himself from the case. Gorsuch is from Colorado, and watchdog groups like Common Cause called out his close relationship with billionaire oil baron Philip Anschutz, stating that Gorsuch’s involvement could connect him to “major profits for his Big Oil friends.”
David Madison can be reached at david@cowboystatedaily.com.
