The Supreme Court recently narrowed the scope of environmental reviews required for major infrastructure projects, potentially speeding up permit approvals for highways, airports, and pipelines. This ruling marks another setback for environmental advocates under the conservative court, which has also limited protections for wetlands and curbed efforts to reduce cross-state air pollution. President Donald Trump had previously criticized environmental assessments as excessively burdensome.

The case involved an 88-mile railway designed to transport waxy crude oil from Utah’s Uinta Basin to existing rail networks. Justice Brett Kavanaugh, writing for a unanimous court (excluding Justice Neil Gorsuch who recused himself), ruled that environmental concerns related to the railway were “not close.” He emphasized that the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) is meant as a procedural check to inform agency decisions, not a barrier to projects.

The court’s three liberal justices agreed with the outcome but on different grounds. Justice Sonia Sotomayor argued that agencies should only assess environmental impacts within their jurisdiction. The Surface Transportation Board, responsible for the railway’s review, could not lawfully consider oil refining impacts upstream or downstream of the project.

Environmental groups, including Earthjustice, opposed the decision, warning it could limit public awareness of broader environmental and health consequences. They argued that restricting reviews undermines settled law and public protection. The Biden administration supported the narrower review, continuing a trend also seen during the Trump administration, which sought to streamline NEPA assessments to reduce delays and costs.

Last year’s congressional revisions capped environmental studies at 150 pages, prompting concerns that complex projects’ full impacts may be overlooked. Opponents fear this ruling sets a precedent that favors fossil fuel interests at the expense of environmental health.