LLW is closely monitoring a case before the U.S. Supreme Court that could significantly impact environmental reviews under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The case, Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County, Colorado, asks whether NEPA “requires an agency to study environmental impacts beyond the proximate effects of the action over which the agency has regulatory authority.” Depending on the Court’s answer, the decision could lead to longer, more extensive NEPA reviews for federal agency decisions and projects, including those in Florida.
The Seven County case reached the Supreme Court from the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, which has appellate jurisdiction over decisions by the Surface Transportation Board (the Board). The Board oversees railroads and rail carriers, including the “construction, acquisition, operation, abandonment, or discontinuance” of rail lines, under 49 U.S.C. § 10501(b)(2).
In this case, the Board conducted a NEPA review for a proposed rail line in the Uinta Basin, a region spanning Utah and Colorado. The proposed line would transport waxy crude oil, drawing scrutiny from environmental groups and local governments along the rail route. These groups, led by Eagle County, Colorado, challenged the adequacy of the Board’s environmental review in the D.C. Circuit.
The D.C. Circuit sided with Eagle County and the environmental groups, ruling that the Board’s environmental impact statement (EIS) did not adequately assess all “reasonably foreseeable” effects as required by NEPA. Specifically, the court found that the Board failed to account for the upstream and downstream effects of increased oil extraction and refinement. This included potential impacts on communities near Gulf Coast refineries—far from the proposed rail line in the mountainous Uinta Basin—where increased amounts of waxy crude would likely be processed.
Disagreeing with the D.C. Circuit’s expansive interpretation of NEPA, the Seven County Infrastructure Coalition petitioned the Supreme Court to review the decision. The Coalition argued that the D.C. Circuit’s approach conflicted with other federal appellate courts, including the Eleventh Circuit, which covers Florida. It also claimed that the ruling imposes unnecessarily burdensome requirements on federal agencies by forcing them to consider environmental impacts that are too attenuated, outside their regulatory authority, and beyond their expertise. This, the Coalition contended, violates the Supreme Court’s previously articulated “rule of reason” for NEPA reviews.
The State of Florida joined an amicus curiae (“friend of the court”) brief urging the Supreme Court to reject the D.C. Circuit’s approach based on the concepts of states’ rights and cooperative federalism. Notably, if the Supreme Court upholds the D.C. Circuit’s decision, it would change the law in Florida and other jurisdictions that currently follow less expansive NEPA standards.
Interestingly, the federal government also opposes the D.C. Circuit’s ruling, agreeing with the Coalition that the Board’s EIS was sufficient. However, the government proposes a more moderate test for determining which environmental effects agencies should consider under NEPA, compared to the narrow standard the Coalition advocates.
The Supreme Court may decide the case without addressing the broader question of NEPA’s scope. For example, if the justices find no substantial difference between the D.C. Circuit’s standard and those used by other courts, they could dismiss the case as “improvidently granted.” This would leave the D.C. Circuit’s decision in place but allow other circuits, like the Eleventh, to continue applying their existing interpretations. Such an outcome would likely satisfy Florida and its fellow amici, even though it would be a loss for the Coalition. If any justices are concerned about this issue, we can expect them to ask the advocates about it at oral argument.
Another factor that could influence the case is the D.C. Circuit’s recent decision in Marin Audubon Society v. Federal Aviation Administration (issued November 12, 2024). In Marin Audubon, the court ruled that the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) lacks the authority to issue binding NEPA regulations for other federal agencies. Since the Board in Seven County conducted its NEPA review under CEQ regulations, the Marin Audubon ruling could cast doubt on the validity of the D.C. Circuit’s ruling that the Board’s EIS was insufficient. Marin Audubon might prompt some justices to ask the advocates whether Seven County should be sent back down to the D.C. Circuit for reconsideration following Marin Audubon. This approach would allow the Supreme Court to vacate the D.C. Circuit’s decision without issuing a broad pronouncement on NEPA’s scope.
Oral arguments are scheduled for December 10, 2024. We’ll closely follow the justices’ questions and the advocates’ responses for clues about how the Court may rule and where their skepticism lies.
Stay tuned for a detailed breakdown of the Seven County oral arguments. The Supreme Court’s decision is expected by the end of its term in June 2025.