The Supreme Court has made a significant ruling that limits the use of environmental impact statements, favoring developers in an 8-0 decision. This ruling, announced on Thursday, addresses concerns that such environmental claims have often been used to stall or block new infrastructure projects.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh, speaking for the court, emphasized that the original intent of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), created in 1970, has been lost over time. He noted that the law has morphed from a simple reporting requirement into a complex process that hinders development. Kavanaugh stated, “Fewer projects make it to the finish line,” which leads to increased costs and delays in vital infrastructure like railroads, airports, and housing.
The decision is particularly important for California and the western United States, where the 9th Circuit Court has traditionally taken a broad view of environmental protections. The ruling could have far-reaching effects on major projects, including California’s high-speed rail and the controversial Delta Conveyance Project, which aims to transport water from the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta.
Environmental advocates have expressed strong opposition to the ruling. Sam Sankar from Earthjustice criticized it as undermining decades of legal precedent that required federal agencies to consider the environmental impacts of their projects. Wendy Park, an attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity, called the decision disastrous, warning it would lead to more pollution and health risks.
In contrast, supporters of the ruling, including the American Petroleum Institute, welcomed it as a way to restore NEPA to its original purpose. They argue that the ruling will help streamline the permitting process and promote energy production.
The case that prompted this decision involved a proposed 88-mile railroad in northeastern Utah. The U.S. Surface Transportation Board had conducted extensive analysis on the environmental impacts but was blocked by a lower court that wanted to consider broader upstream and downstream effects. The Supreme Court ruled that the board only needed to evaluate the direct impacts of the railroad project itself.
This ruling signals a shift in how environmental reviews will be conducted moving forward, potentially opening the door for more infrastructure development while raising concerns among environmentalists about the consequences for communities and ecosystems.