United States Supreme Court Decision on Environmental Impact Statement Scope under NEPA

Overview of the Supreme Court Ruling

On May 29, 2025, the United States Supreme Court unanimously ruled 8-0 in Seven County Infrastructure Coalition et al. v. Eagle County, Colorado, et al. The Court held that the scope of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) is procedural in nature. It clarified that NEPA does not require agencies to weigh environmental consequences in any specific manner. Instead, agencies may assess environmental impacts as they reasonably see fit under their governing statutes and relevant environmental laws. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that judicial review of NEPA environmental reports must grant substantial deference to federal agencies.

Case Background

1. Project Proposal: In 2020, the Seven County Infrastructure Coalition, representing seven Utah counties, proposed a new railroad line project to the U.S. Surface Transportation Board (the Board). The project aimed to transport crude oil from Utah’s Uinta Basin to the national freight rail network, connecting to refineries in Louisiana, Texas, and other locations.
2. NEPA Environmental Review: Federal law mandated the Board to conduct a NEPA environmental review, including preparation of an EIS, to evaluate environmental effects and feasible alternatives for the project.
3. EIS Findings: The Board’s EIS, exceeding 3,600 pages, analyzed adverse impacts such as disruptions to wetlands, land use, and recreation. It noted potential indirect impacts on future oil and gas development but determined further analysis unnecessary due to regulatory oversight by other agencies and attenuated connection to the project.
4. Project Approval and Legal Challenge: The Board approved the project in December 2021. Environmental organizations challenged the approval, alleging NEPA violations for failing to consider all environmental impacts, including foreseeable effects from future oil drilling and refining. The appellate court vacated the EIS and project approval.

Supreme Court’s Decision and Implications for Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

• Judicial Deference to Agencies: The Supreme Court reversed the appellate court’s decision, affirming that agencies should receive substantial deference in determining the adequacy of environmental reviews under NEPA, provided their decisions are reasonably explained.
• Scope of Environmental Analysis: The Court ruled that NEPA does not require agencies to analyze environmental effects of projects beyond their regulatory authority, even if such effects are foreseeable.
• Impact on SDGs: This ruling influences how environmental assessments align with the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals, particularly:
  • SDG 13 (Climate Action): By defining the procedural scope of environmental reviews, the decision affects how agencies address climate-related impacts from infrastructure projects.
  • SDG 15 (Life on Land): The evaluation of impacts on wetlands and land use relates directly to conserving terrestrial ecosystems.
  • SDG 9 (Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure): The project’s approval supports infrastructure development while balancing environmental considerations.

Comparison with California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)

The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), California’s counterpart to NEPA, differs notably in its approach to environmental review:

• Substantive Mandate: Unlike NEPA’s procedural focus, CEQA requires agencies to avoid approving projects if feasible alternatives or mitigation measures exist to reduce environmental harm.
• Consideration of Foreseeable Impacts: CEQA mandates consideration and mitigation of foreseeable environmental impacts even outside the agency’s jurisdiction, provided there is evidence supporting such impacts.
• Legal Precedents: Cases such as Mountain Lion Foundation v. Fish & Game Commission and Tracy First v. City of Tracy illustrate CEQA’s broader substantive requirements compared to NEPA.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County clarifies the procedural scope of NEPA environmental reviews and reinforces judicial deference to agency expertise. This interpretation shapes how infrastructure projects balance development with environmental stewardship, directly impacting progress toward multiple Sustainable Development Goals. Meanwhile, state-level frameworks like CEQA may impose more stringent substantive environmental protections, highlighting the layered governance of sustainable development in the United States.

Disclaimer

This report is intended for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The application of legal principles may vary depending on specific circumstances. No attorney-client relationship is established by this publication.

© 2025 Atkinson, Andelson, Loya, Ruud & Romo

1. Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) Addressed or Connected

1. SDG 13: Climate Action
   • The article discusses environmental impact assessments related to oil transportation and refining, which are significant contributors to greenhouse gas emissions and climate change.
2. SDG 15: Life on Land
   • The article highlights potential adverse impacts on wetlands, land use, and recreation areas, which relate to the conservation and sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems.
3. SDG 16: Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions
   • The judicial review process and the role of federal agencies in environmental decision-making relate to effective, accountable, and transparent institutions.
4. SDG 9: Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure
   • The proposed railroad infrastructure project for crude oil transport connects to sustainable industrialization and infrastructure development.

2. Specific Targets Under Those SDGs Identified

1. SDG 13: Climate Action
   • Target 13.2: Integrate climate change measures into national policies, strategies, and planning.
   • Target 13.3: Improve education, awareness-raising, and human and institutional capacity on climate change mitigation and adaptation.
2. SDG 15: Life on Land
   • Target 15.1: Ensure the conservation, restoration, and sustainable use of terrestrial and inland freshwater ecosystems and their services.
   • Target 15.5: Take urgent and significant action to reduce degradation of natural habitats, halt the loss of biodiversity.
3. SDG 16: Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions
   • Target 16.6: Develop effective, accountable, and transparent institutions at all levels.
   • Target 16.10: Ensure public access to information and protect fundamental freedoms.
4. SDG 9: Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure
   • Target 9.1: Develop quality, reliable, sustainable, and resilient infrastructure.
   • Target 9.4: Upgrade infrastructure and retrofit industries to make them sustainable.

3. Indicators Mentioned or Implied to Measure Progress

1. Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Metrics
   • Number and scope of Environmental Impact Statements (EIS) prepared and approved.
   • Assessment of adverse impacts on wetlands, land use, and recreation areas.
   • Consideration of feasible alternatives and mitigation measures in project approvals.
2. Judicial Review and Agency Compliance
   • Frequency and outcomes of judicial reviews related to environmental compliance under NEPA and CEQA.
   • Degree of agency adherence to procedural and substantive environmental mandates.
3. Regulatory Scope and Accountability
   • Extent to which agencies consider foreseeable environmental impacts within their jurisdiction.
   • Implementation of mitigation measures for identified environmental impacts.

4. Table: SDGs, Targets and Indicators

Source: aalrr.com