The U.S. Supreme Court recently issued a significant ruling that narrows the scope of environmental reviews required for large infrastructure projects, including highways, airports, pipelines, and railways. The decision marks another setback for environmental advocates, reflecting a broader trend at the conservative-leaning Court toward reducing federal oversight of environmental protections. Recent rulings have similarly limited the federal government’s ability to regulate cross-state air pollution and defend wetlands, signaling a judicial approach that favors economic development over extensive environmental review. The ruling specifically involves the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), a cornerstone of U.S. environmental law since 1970, which requires federal agencies to assess the environmental consequences of major actions. Historically, NEPA reviews could be lengthy and detailed, but the Court’s interpretation now emphasizes procedural compliance rather than substantive environmental impact.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh authored the unanimous opinion, framing the dispute around an 88-mile railway designed to connect Utah’s Uinta Basin to national rail networks for transporting waxy crude oil. Environmental groups argued that the federal review was insufficient because it did not consider downstream effects, including increased air pollution and additional refining operations. Kavanaugh rejected these arguments, asserting that the Surface Transportation Board’s analysis was within a broad “zone of reasonableness” and emphasizing that courts should not “micromanage” federal agencies. He characterized NEPA as a procedural cross-check, requiring agencies to consider environmental impacts without mandating that projects be blocked based on those considerations. The ruling establishes that federal agencies are responsible only for impacts directly associated with their decisions, not for broader effects occurring elsewhere in the economy or industry.

Justice Neil Gorsuch recused himself without explanation, a move that had drawn scrutiny from Democratic lawmakers who suggested potential conflicts of interest tied to a supporter of the railway project. Despite his absence, the three liberal justices — Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson — concurred with the decision, though Sotomayor wrote separately to offer an alternative rationale. She argued that agencies should only assess environmental impacts directly related to their statutory responsibilities, such as transportation logistics, and need not evaluate emissions or pollution from oil extraction or refining activities elsewhere. This reasoning emphasizes a narrower scope for environmental review, aligning with the Court’s broader effort to limit agency discretion and streamline approval processes for infrastructure projects.

The Biden administration surprisingly supported the limited review conducted by the Board, aligning with prior Trump-era positions. Under former President Donald Trump, NEPA reviews were criticized as inefficient, delaying infrastructure projects, increasing costs, and impeding job creation. Congressional revisions in 2023 capped many NEPA assessments at 150 pages, a significant reduction from previous multi-thousand-page reviews. Proponents of the Uinta Basin railway argued that these restrictions made comprehensive assessments of all downstream impacts practically impossible. By endorsing the limited scope of analysis, the administration emphasized efficiency and procedural compliance, signaling that bipartisan agreement on streamlining environmental reviews can occur under certain circumstances despite differing broader policy priorities.

Environmental organizations, including Earthjustice, expressed strong opposition, filing lawsuits and warning that the ruling could set a dangerous precedent. Critics argued that limiting reviews to direct impacts would prevent the public from understanding broader environmental, health, and climate consequences of major projects. Sam Sankar of Earthjustice emphasized that communities near refineries or transportation corridors could suffer from increased pollution if downstream effects are ignored. Legal challenges and public opposition highlight concerns that narrowing NEPA’s application undermines a half-century of environmental protections, shielding industries from accountability and reducing transparency in decisions that have far-reaching consequences for ecosystems and public health.

The Supreme Court’s ruling has substantial implications for federal permitting nationwide. By narrowing the range of impacts agencies must consider, the decision is likely to expedite approvals for energy, transportation, and infrastructure projects while reducing opportunities for public input and oversight. Supporters argue that it prevents agencies from being overwhelmed by speculative analyses and focuses attention on impacts within their direct jurisdiction. Opponents counter that environmental harms are interconnected, and ignoring downstream effects allows major industries, particularly fossil fuels, to proceed with limited scrutiny. As infrastructure projects continue to expand across the country, the ruling signals a judicial commitment to limiting federal environmental review, reshaping the balance between economic development and environmental protection, and setting the stage for future legal and policy debates over NEPA’s scope and effectiveness.