The Supreme Court heard oral arguments Tuesday on a case that could alter key environmental laws and determine the future of oil rail projects in the West.
The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires federal agencies to conduct environmental impact reviews before making any decisions. then exit “Detailed Statement” of the Review
SCOTUS heard arguments in the Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County case to decide whether the agency needed to study environmental impacts in addition to “Is there a proximate impact of the actions that the authority has the authority to regulate?” The judges appeared open to considering the scope of the NERC, but did not specify how they would adjust the law.
The Seven Countries Infrastructure Coalition (SCIC) filed a complaint with the Surface Transportation Board (STB), a federal agency. To build an 80-mile transportation system to connect crude oil from Utah’s Uinta Basin to the national railroad.
Federal court rules environmental statute lasts decades
Member of the Supreme Court Front row from left Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Clarence Thomas, Chief Justice John Roberts, Justices Samuel Alito and Elena Kagan, and, back from left. Justices Amy Coney Barrett, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Ketanji Brown Jackson on Oct. 1, Sept. 7, 2022 in Washington, D.C. (Alex Wong/Getty Images)
STB releases environmental impact statement on the railway But opponents of the project in Eagle County, Colorado, argue that federal agencies did not consider all environmental impacts and therefore violate NEPA.
Supreme Court appears divided over state ban on gender transition ‘treatment’ for minors
The case was taken to the D.C. Circuit Court, which ruled that STB violated environmental laws. And there will be a new, more thorough review before the project moves forward. In March 2024, SCIC filed a complaint with SCOTUS in the case.
Paul Clement, an attorney supporting the SCIC project, argued that it was a “straightforward case” and asked that NEPA be limited to the principles. “Proximal cause” only
“NEPA is a self-explanatory procedural rule. It is designed to inform government decisions. It’s not paralyzing,” Clement argued Tuesday.
The Price River Terminal is a crude oil terminal near Wellington, Utah. Tankers import crude oil and transfer it to railcars at the terminal. (Picture of Jon Ji. Fuller/Getty)
Clement called the D.C. court’s request to conduct an additional environmental review “a no-brainer.” “The formula for turning procedural law into a major roadblock.”
“All this is far from time and place. But it is still outside the limited remittance scope of the STB and falls under the jurisdiction of other agencies. That can solve those problems comprehensively and concretely if problems arise,” he said during verbal argument
Many justices appear to agree that a D.C. court review of all new environmental projects may not be necessary.
“It is not a question of failure to see something,” Judge Sonia Sotomayor said. “The question before us is, Is it arbitrary and capricious not to consider anything more?”
The judge questioned Clement about how his request would affect the scope of environmental reviews, such as large or small projects.
The United States Supreme Court building in Washington, D.C. (Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)
Clement responded, “If the environmental impact statement focuses on the project, It will let you know. You can choose one path or another. Or the agency itself can determine measures to mitigate the impact. But if you were to look at everything under the sun, that is, outside the agency’s purview.”
“This case is bigger than the Uinta Basin Railroad,” Sam Sankar, vice president of Earthjustice programs, said in a statement. “The fossil fuel industry and its allies are strongly contesting this. This leaves citizens blind to the clear health consequences of government decisions. Instead, the court should uphold the agreed-upon law. If not then The community will pay the price.”
CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP
Justice Neil Gorsuch on Dec. 1 4. Withdrew from the case before arguing.
