A road construction project has unearthed old streetcar tracks that have been buried on East Exchange street since the 1940s.
Washington D.C. – The U.S. Supreme Court dealt a significant blow to the nation’s key environmental law on Thursday, making it easier for infrastructure projects like highways, pipelines, wind farms, and railroads to gain approval. In a unanimous ruling, the Court dramatically narrowed the scope of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), a 1970 statute that requires federal agencies to assess environmental impacts before greenlighting projects.
At the heart of the case was a proposed 88-mile railroad in Utah’s Uinta Basin, an oil-rich region. The rail line would connect the basin to the national freight rail system, speeding crude oil shipments to refineries on the Gulf Coast. The U.S. Surface Transportation Board, responsible for approving the project, conducted a thorough review including a 3,600-page report, and concluded the project’s transportation and economic benefits outweighed environmental harms.
However, the U.S. Court of Appeals struck down the approval, ruling that the Board failed to consider the broader environmental impacts of the project — specifically the so-called “upstream” effects of oil drilling and “downstream” effects of refining and distribution. The Supreme Court reversed this decision, ruling that such indirect environmental consequences are outside the scope of NEPA’s review.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh, writing for the majority, emphasized that NEPA is “purely a procedural statute” designed to facilitate environmental review but not to block projects outright. He argued courts should defer to agency judgments about how far their environmental review should go, as long as those decisions are reasonable. Kavanaugh framed the ruling as a necessary “judicial correction” to curb delays he described as “Kafkaesque.”
Critics, however, view the ruling as a significant step backward for environmental protection. Harvard Law Professor Richard Lazarus called it “a major cutback” that overturned 50 years of NEPA practice by barring agencies from considering the full lifecycle impacts of projects. Lazarus accused Kavanaugh of turning his opinion into a policy argument unsupported by facts, painting NEPA as a job-killing obstacle.
Environmental groups voiced strong opposition. Earthjustice warned that the ruling invites federal agencies to ignore environmental concerns, potentially boosting fossil fuel use and hindering renewable energy development.
On the other side, industry groups — including mining, oil, lumber, and real estate interests — praised the decision. Lawyer Hadassah Reimer, representing these groups, said the ruling ends unrealistic demands for agencies to speculate about impacts beyond their control, promising more efficient environmental reviews nationwide.
