Supreme Court Narrows Environmental Review Rules, Paving Way for Faster Infrastructure Approvals
In a significant move that may accelerate the development of major infrastructure projects across the country, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled to limit the scope of environmental reviews required under federal law. The decision affects a wide range of projects—including highways, pipelines, and railways—by reducing the depth and breadth of environmental studies needed before construction can proceed.

The ruling marks a notable setback for environmental advocacy groups, many of which have relied on the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) to challenge or delay projects they believe could harm ecosystems or contribute to climate change. NEPA, signed into law in 1970 by President Richard Nixon, has long been considered a cornerstone of the modern environmental movement.

In the latest case, which centered on an 88-mile railway project designed to transport waxy crude oil from Utah’s Uinta Basin to national rail networks, the court found that federal agencies are not required to consider every downstream environmental impact when reviewing a project’s potential consequences.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh authored the majority opinion, which was supported unanimously by the court’s participating justices. He emphasized that NEPA is intended to ensure that agencies are aware of the environmental implications of their decisions—not to block projects through excessive procedural demands.

“NEPA is a procedural cross-check, not a substantive roadblock,” Kavanaugh wrote. “The goal is to inform agency decision-making, not to paralyze it.”

The court determined that the Surface Transportation Board (STB), which conducted the environmental review in question, had acted within its authority and reasonably limited its evaluation to issues directly related to transportation. The STB does not regulate oil production or refining, and therefore, the court said, was not obligated to consider those broader environmental consequences.

Justice Neil Gorsuch recused himself from the case, without offering a public explanation. His withdrawal followed concerns raised by congressional Democrats regarding the financial interests of Denver billionaire Philip Anschutz, who has known ties to Gorsuch and reportedly has a stake in the outcome of the railway project.

While the court’s liberal justices—Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson—concurred with the final decision, they expressed differing reasoning. Writing on behalf of the three, Sotomayor argued that environmental reviews should remain within the jurisdiction of each agency’s expertise.

“Under NEPA, agencies must consider the environmental impacts for which their decisions would be responsible,” she stated. “The Surface Transportation Board correctly determined that consequences tied to oil production or refining were outside its legal authority.”

The Biden administration, much like the Trump administration before it, supported a more restrained interpretation of NEPA requirements in this case. The Justice Department defended the STB’s review, saying that expanding its scope beyond its regulatory domain would create inefficiencies without improving environmental outcomes.

During his presidency, Donald Trump criticized the federal environmental review process as overly burdensome and detrimental to economic growth. In 2020, he stated, “These endless delays waste money, keep projects from breaking ground, and deny jobs to our nation’s incredible workers. From day one, my administration made fixing this regulatory nightmare a top priority.”

Congress has since revised aspects of NEPA, capping many environmental reports at 150 pages—down from the thousands often produced under older guidelines. This legislative change reflects a growing bipartisan interest in streamlining the project approval process.

Supporters of the Utah railway argued that it would be virtually impossible to evaluate all indirect consequences—such as the emissions from future oil refining—within the confines of a 150-page environmental document. The railway is seen by backers as a critical transportation link that could open up new markets for energy producers in the Uinta Basin.

However, environmental groups warn that narrowing the scope of review sets a dangerous precedent. Eagle County, Colorado, along with Earthjustice and other advocacy organizations, filed suit to block the railway, arguing that ignoring the broader implications—especially increased fossil fuel refining—could have harmful long-term effects.

“This case is bigger than the Uinta Basin railway,” said Sam Sankar, senior vice president of programs at Earthjustice. “The fossil fuel industry and its allies are making radical arguments that would blind the public to the obvious health consequences of government decisions. If the court allows this, communities will pay the price.”

With the Supreme Court’s ruling, agencies now have greater latitude in how they conduct environmental assessments, potentially clearing the path for energy and infrastructure projects to move forward with fewer legal hurdles. Still, the decision is expected to reignite debates over how to balance economic development with environmental protection in a warming world.