menu_open Columnists
We use cookies to provide some features and experiences in QOSHE

More information  .  Close

Supreme Court narrows NEPA

2 1
30.05.2025
*{box-sizing:border-box}body{margin:0;padding:0}a[x-apple-data-detectors]{color:inherit!important;text-decoration:inherit!important}#MessageViewBody a{color:inherit;text-decoration:none}p{line-height:inherit}.desktop_hide,.desktop_hide table{mso-hide:all;display:none;max-height:0;overflow:hidden}.image_block img div{display:none}sub,sup{font-size:75%;line-height:0} @media (max-width:620px){.image_block div.fullWidth{max-width:100%!important}.mobile_hide{display:none}.row-content{width:100%!important}.stack .column{width:100%;display:block}.mobile_hide{min-height:0;max-height:0;max-width:0;overflow:hidden;font-size:0}.desktop_hide,.desktop_hide table{display:table!important;max-height:none!important}.reverse{display:table;width:100%}.reverse .column.first{display:table-footer-group!important}.reverse .column.last{display:table-header-group!important}.row-11 td.column.first .border,.row-7 td.column.first .border,.row-9 td.column.first .border{padding:5px 5px 15px 25px}.row-11 td.column.last .border,.row-7 td.column.last .border,.row-9 td.column.last .border{padding:5px 20px 25px 5px}} Presented by Entergy

{beacon}

Energy & Environment

Energy & Environment

 

The Big Story

Supreme Court narrows environmental reviews

The Supreme Court has narrowed the scope of environmental review under one of the nation’s bedrock environmental laws.

© Greg Nash

In an 8-0 ruling Thursday, the high court determined reviews conducted under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) do not need to consider certain upstream or downstream impacts of an infrastructure project.

NEPA requires the government to consider the impacts of proposed infrastructure projects, ranging from highways to pipelines.

At issue in the case was a federal government’s assessment of a proposed railway line to ship oil in Utah.

A lower court ruled the government’s review was inadequate because it did not fully consider the impacts of increased oil production and refining that could occur as a result of the railway project. The majority opinion, written by Justice Brett Kavanaugh, disagreed.

“When the effects of an agency action arise from a separate project—for example, a possible future project or one that is geographically distinct from the project at hand—NEPA does not require the agency to evaluate the effects of that separate project,” he wrote.

The opinion also reins in the power of federal courts to block projects along similar grounds.

“NEPA does not allow courts, ‘under the guise of judicial review’ of agency compliance with NEPA, to delay or block agency projects based on the environmental effects of other projects separate from the project at hand,” it said.

Kavanaugh was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Amy Coney Barrett.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote a separate, concurring opinion joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson. Justice Neil Gorsuch recused himself from the case.

Read more at TheHill.com.

 

Welcome to The Hill’s Energy & Environment newsletter, I'm Rachel Frazin — keeping you up to speed on the policies impacting everything from oil and gas to new supply chains.

 

Did someone forward you this newsletter? Subscribe here.

 

Essential Reads

How policy will affect the energy and environment sectors now and in the........

© The Hill