Supreme Court Narrows Environmental Reviews, Paving Way for Faster Infrastructure Approvals

The U.S. Supreme Court has issued a ruling that limits the scope of environmental reviews required for major infrastructure projects, a decision that could accelerate the approval process for pipelines, highways, airports, and railways. The unanimous decision is seen as another major setback for environmental advocacy groups and a victory for developers and the energy sector.

At the heart of the case was a proposed 88-mile railway line in Utah’s Uinta Basin, designed to transport a heavy crude oil known as waxy crude from remote oil fields to the national rail network. Environmental organizations had challenged the approval process, arguing that federal agencies failed to consider the broader environmental consequences associated with the project—particularly the downstream impact of increased oil production and refining.

Writing the court’s opinion, Justice Brett Kavanaugh emphasized that the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), which governs such environmental reviews, is intended to serve as a procedural guideline, not a barrier to development.

“NEPA is a procedural cross-check, not a substantive roadblock,” Kavanaugh wrote. “Its role is to ensure agencies are informed, not paralyzed.” He added that courts should give considerable leeway to agency decisions, so long as those decisions fall within a broad range of reasonableness.

The ruling reaffirms a narrower interpretation of NEPA that focuses on immediate environmental impacts of a project rather than far-reaching or speculative outcomes. Kavanaugh noted that the environmental concerns raised in this case were “not close,” reinforcing the agency’s discretion in limiting its review.

Justice Neil Gorsuch did not participate in the case, citing a conflict of interest. While he did not offer a public explanation, his recusal followed concerns raised by congressional Democrats regarding Denver billionaire Philip Anschutz—a major supporter of Gorsuch—who has financial ties to the rail project.

Interestingly, the court’s three liberal justices—Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson—concurred with the final decision, albeit for different reasons. Justice Sotomayor wrote a separate opinion stating that federal agencies are only required to assess the environmental consequences directly tied to their own jurisdiction.

“In this case, the Surface Transportation Board appropriately concluded that it was not responsible for the impacts of upstream oil extraction or downstream refining,” Sotomayor stated. “Its responsibility lies with the railway itself, not the full lifecycle of the transported oil.”

The decision represents yet another blow to environmental groups at the hands of the current Supreme Court, which has increasingly rolled back or narrowed federal environmental protections. In recent years, the Court has weakened safeguards for wetlands and struck down federal initiatives aimed at curbing air pollution across state lines.

The case has broad implications beyond Utah. By narrowing how environmental assessments are conducted, the ruling effectively limits the ability of environmental advocates to challenge future infrastructure projects on the basis of indirect or downstream environmental effects.

Sam Sankar, vice president of programs at Earthjustice, which represented several of the plaintiffs, voiced concern about the wider impact of the decision. “This case is bigger than just a railway,” Sankar warned. “The ruling could insulate the fossil fuel industry from scrutiny by preventing the public from understanding the full health and environmental consequences of federal approvals.”

In defending the project, both the Biden and Trump administrations supported the limited scope of the review—a rare point of agreement. The Biden administration argued that the Surface Transportation Board acted within the law by not expanding its review beyond the rail line itself.

The ruling also comes after recent changes to NEPA passed by Congress in 2023, which imposed new limitations on the environmental review process. Among those changes was a cap on the length of environmental studies, which are now generally restricted to 150 pages—down from thousands in some past cases.

Proponents of the railway project noted the difficulty of assessing broader consequences under such constraints. “You can’t explore all downstream effects in 150 pages,” said a legal adviser involved with the defense.

During his presidency, Donald Trump repeatedly criticized NEPA as a bureaucratic obstacle that hindered job creation and infrastructure development. In a 2020 statement from the White House, Trump described environmental reviews as “endless delays” that “waste money” and “deny jobs to our nation’s incredible workers.”

The Supreme Court’s latest decision aligns with that vision, reflecting a broader judicial shift toward deregulation and prioritizing economic development over expansive environmental oversight.

While environmental advocates decry the ruling as a dangerous precedent, supporters hail it as a return to pragmatic governance. For now, infrastructure developers have reason to celebrate, as the path to permits just got a bit shorter.