The U.S. Supreme Court is now considering one of the most consequential environmental cases of the year, with the fate of a proposed 88-mile railroad in Utah on the line. At the heart of the dispute is whether the Uinta Basin Railway, which would transport vast quantities of oil through Colorado, meets the rigorous environmental review standards set by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). With oral arguments completed, the justices are deliberating behind closed doors, and their decision could reshape how the U.S. evaluates large-scale infrastructure projects.
The Case Behind the Controversy
At stake is not just the future of the Uinta Basin Railway, but the very framework used to assess the environmental risks of major federal decisions. The railway, approved by federal regulators in 2021, would link Utah’s massive oil field to national rail networks, allowing the transportation of up to 350,000 barrels of oil per day. This project is a huge deal for oil drillers, but for the residents of Colorado, it’s more than just another railroad. It would significantly increase hazardous material rail traffic through the state, with potential for spills, accidents, and even wildfires.
Colorado’s Eagle County, along with five environmental groups, filed a lawsuit to block the railway’s approval, arguing that the environmental impact statement (EIS) was inadequate. They argue that the railway’s environmental review did not take into account crucial effects such as the upstream impacts on oil and gas production in the Uinta Basin, the downstream consequences for oil refining in the Gulf Coast, and the risks to Colorado communities from the increased rail traffic.
A lower court sided with the challengers, striking down the project’s approval, but the railway’s backers, represented by the Seven County Infrastructure Coalition (SCIC), took the case to the Supreme Court, hoping to reverse the ruling and set new limits on how NEPA is applied.
“Proximate Cause” and the Future of NEPA Reviews
One of the most contentious aspects of the case is the proposal by the SCIC to limit the scope of NEPA reviews using the concept of “proximate cause” from tort law. Under this argument, only direct and immediate consequences of a project would need to be considered, and more distant or indirect effects—like the environmental impacts of increased oil production or the risk of oil spills in Colorado—would be excluded.
During oral arguments, the justices appeared skeptical of this narrow approach. Chief Justice John Roberts, known for his more moderate stance, expressed concerns about how this new standard would work in practice. “I have trouble seeing how this is going to work out as a practical matter,” he said, casting doubt on the SCIC’s argument that only direct and immediate consequences should be considered in NEPA reviews.
The proposal is seen as a push to overhaul NEPA, a law that requires federal agencies to assess the environmental impacts of significant projects before approval. In the past, the law has been a powerful tool for environmental advocates, but conservative groups have long argued that its application is too broad and burdensome for businesses.
Why the Court’s Ruling Matters Beyond This Case
The Supreme Court’s decision in this case will have implications well beyond the Uinta Basin Railway. If the Court sides with the SCIC and imposes stricter limits on NEPA reviews, it could make it more difficult for environmental groups to challenge large infrastructure projects in the future. On the other hand, a ruling that upholds the current, broader standards could provide a boost to environmental advocates who argue that projects like the Uinta Basin Railway pose risks not just locally, but to broader ecosystems and communities.
This case is also a bellwether for how the Court may approach environmental issues more generally, especially in the context of climate change. The decision could influence how the country balances economic development with environmental protection in the years to come.
Could the Court Dismiss the Case?
Before the oral arguments took place, some legal experts speculated that the Court might dismiss the case as “improvidently granted,” meaning that the case was not an appropriate vehicle for addressing the legal questions it raised. After all, some analysts argued that the case was a poor fit for the Court’s docket and might not serve as a clear basis for a broad legal ruling.
Andrew Mergen, a professor of environmental law at Harvard, called the case a “poor vehicle” for addressing NEPA’s scope. He suggested that the legal arguments could be better addressed in a different case. Despite this, the Court pressed ahead with the case, and now, all eyes are on the justices as they consider the implications of their ruling.
What’s Next?
The Court has now officially submitted the case, and the justices will deliberate in the coming months. There’s no telling what the outcome will be, but the stakes are high for both sides. For Colorado and the environmental groups fighting the railway, a win could protect the state from an influx of hazardous materials and maintain the integrity of NEPA’s environmental safeguards. For the SCIC and its allies, a victory could pave the way for future oil and gas projects with fewer environmental constraints.
The justices are likely to take their time with this decision, weighing not just the facts of this particular case, but the broader implications for U.S. environmental policy. Whatever the outcome, this case will likely set a significant precedent for how federal agencies handle major infrastructure projects moving forward.
Comments