Supreme Court Narrows Environmental Red Tape, Boosting Energy and Infrastructure Projects
The U.S. Supreme Court has issued a ruling that limits the reach of federal environmental reviews for major infrastructure projects, marking another significant victory for streamlining America’s energy and transportation development.
The decision reduces bureaucratic hurdles under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), first enacted under President Richard Nixon, and will help accelerate the permitting process for railways, pipelines, airports, and highways—projects long delayed by years of litigation and paperwork.
Kavanaugh: NEPA Is a “Cross-Check, Not a Roadblock”
Justice Brett Kavanaugh authored the unanimous ruling, with no dissent from either conservative or liberal justices. Writing for the Court, he made clear that agencies deserve deference when conducting environmental reviews.
“Courts should afford substantial deference and should not micromanage those agency choices so long as they fall within a broad zone of reasonableness,” Kavanaugh explained.
He further underscored the purpose of the law: “Simply stated, NEPA is a procedural cross-check, not a substantive roadblock. The goal of the law is to inform agency decision-making, not to paralyze it.”
Justice Neil Gorsuch recused himself, without comment, after Democrats suggested a potential financial link through Denver billionaire Philip Anschutz, a longtime Gorsuch supporter.
Liberals Side With Conservatives—For Different Reasons
Even the Court’s three liberal justices—Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson—agreed with the ruling, though their reasoning diverged. Sotomayor argued that agencies should only examine environmental impacts directly tied to their authority.
“Under NEPA, agencies must consider the environmental impacts for which their decisions would be responsible,” Sotomayor wrote, backing the Surface Transportation Board’s narrower evaluation. She noted the board “correctly determined it would not be responsible for the consequences of oil production upstream or downstream from the railway.”
Case Background: Oil Transport in the Uinta Basin
At issue was an 88-mile rail project linking Utah’s Uinta Basin crude oil fields to national rail networks. The Surface Transportation Board completed its review, but environmental groups insisted it should have included downstream refinery impacts.
The Biden administration, much like the Trump administration before it, defended the limited review.
President Donald Trump, during his first administration, blasted NEPA reviews as bloated and destructive to job growth. “These endless delays waste money, keep projects from breaking ground, and deny jobs to our nation’s incredible workers. From day one, my administration has made fixing this regulatory nightmare a top priority,” Trump said in 2020.
Congress later moved to tighten the statute, capping most reviews at 150 pages—down from thousands. Proponents of the rail project argued that under such limits, it would be impossible to consider every downstream consequence.
Environmentalists Cry Foul
Eagle County, Colorado, and advocacy groups like Earthjustice brought the lawsuit, warning that the ruling would create a dangerous precedent.
“This case is bigger than the Uinta Basin railway,” Earthjustice’s Sam Sankar told CNN last December. “The fossil fuel industry and its allies are making radical arguments that would blind the public to the obvious health consequences of government decisions. The court should stick with settled law instead. If it doesn’t, communities will pay the price.”
Despite their protests, the Supreme Court’s decision now clears the way for faster approvals on projects vital to America’s infrastructure and energy security.