Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County
605 U. S. ____ (2025) (2025)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires a federal agency's environmental impact statement (EIS) to analyze the effects of the specific 'proposed action' under its review. It does not require analysis of the environmental effects of separate upstream or downstream projects, particularly when the agency lacks regulatory authority over those separate projects.
Facts:
- The Seven County Infrastructure Coalition, a group of Utah counties, proposed the construction of an 88-mile railroad line.
- The purpose of the proposed railroad was to connect Utah's oil-rich Uinta Basin to the national freight rail network.
- This connection was intended to facilitate the transportation of large quantities of crude oil from the Basin to refineries located primarily along the Gulf Coast.
- The existing method for transporting oil out of the Basin is by truck over difficult and narrow mountain roads, which limits the volume of oil that can be moved.
- The construction and operation of the railroad was expected to facilitate a significant increase in oil drilling within the Uinta Basin and subsequent oil refining at the downstream destinations.
Procedural Posture:
- The Seven County Infrastructure Coalition applied to the U.S. Surface Transportation Board (the Board) for approval to construct and operate the Uinta Basin Railway.
- As required by NEPA, the Board prepared an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to review the project.
- The Board's final EIS noted but did not fully analyze the potential environmental effects of increased upstream oil drilling or downstream oil refining, concluding they were separate projects outside its regulatory authority.
- The Board issued a final order approving the railroad line, finding its transportation and economic benefits outweighed its environmental impacts.
- Eagle County, Colorado, and several environmental organizations (respondents) challenged the Board's decision by filing petitions for review in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.
- The D.C. Circuit held that the EIS was deficient for failing to adequately analyze the reasonably foreseeable upstream and downstream environmental effects.
- The Court of Appeals vacated both the EIS and the Board's final approval order.
- The Seven County Infrastructure Coalition and the Uinta Basin Railway (petitioners) sought and were granted a writ of certiorari from the U.S. Supreme Court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) require a federal agency, when preparing an environmental impact statement (EIS) for a proposed project, to analyze the environmental effects of separate upstream and downstream projects over which the agency has no regulatory authority?
Opinions:
Majority - Kavanaugh, J.
No. The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) does not require an agency to analyze the environmental effects of projects that are separate in time or place from the specific project under its review. The court reasoned that judicial review in NEPA cases must be highly deferential to the agency's choices about the scope and detail of an environmental impact statement (EIS). The text of NEPA focuses on the 'proposed action'—here, the 88-mile railroad—not on other separate projects. The Court held that even if the railroad is a 'but for' cause of increased upstream drilling and downstream refining, these separate projects break the chain of proximate causation. Citing Department of Transportation v. Public Citizen, the Court reinforced the principle that an agency cannot be considered the legally relevant cause of an effect it has no statutory authority to prevent; the Surface Transportation Board regulates railroads, not oil drilling or refining.
Concurring - Sotomayor, J.
No. The Board was not required to analyze the upstream and downstream effects of oil production, but the majority's reasoning is unnecessarily broad and policy-driven. The correct analysis is grounded in the agency's specific organic statute. The Surface Transportation Board's governing statute creates a presumption in favor of approving rail lines and includes a common carrier obligation, which prevents the Board from denying an application based on the end uses of the commodities being transported. Because the Board lacked the statutory authority to reject the railway on account of the harms from oil drilling and refining, the precedent of Public Citizen dictates that NEPA did not require it to analyze those effects.
Analysis:
This decision significantly curtails the scope of NEPA analysis by reinforcing a narrow interpretation of an agency's review obligations. It limits the ability of project opponents to force agencies to study the attenuated, cumulative effects of a project, such as upstream resource extraction or downstream consumption. By strongly emphasizing judicial deference and rejecting a 'but for' causation standard for separate projects, the ruling is likely to streamline the approval process for infrastructure projects and may reduce the length and complexity of environmental litigation. The decision effectively serves as a 'course correction,' pushing back against broader interpretations of NEPA that some courts, particularly the D.C. Circuit, had adopted.
