Supreme Court rules in environmental case

WASHINGTON (Gray DC) - The Supreme Court issues a unanimous ruling in Seven County Infrastructure Coalition versus Eagle County, Colorado, but the justices differ on the reasoning behind that ruling.

The decision could now mean developers are off the hook for disasters down the line.

The question at the center of Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County is, how much geographical area should a developer be responsible for if something goes wrong on a project?

In this case, an 88-mile stretch of railroad that carries crude oil was the center of an environmental impact statement.

Researchers spent years and millions of dollars determining how the project would impact communities, habitats and ecosystems.

If an oil spill happened outside of the project’s purview – who would be responsible?

Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who wrote the majority opinion said quote,

“Simply stated, NEPA - The National Environmental Policy Act - is a procedural cross-check, not a substantive roadblock. The goal of the law is to inform agency decision making, not to paralyze it.”

He went on to say, “Under NEPA, the Board’s EIS did not need to address the environmental effects of upstream oil drilling or downstream oil refining. Rather, it needed to address only the effects of the 88-mile railroad line. And the Board’s EIS did so.”

During oral arguments, Conservative Justices worried excessive red-tape would derail projects that had a potential for environmental disaster. This decision puts the railroad back on track.

Justices Sotomayor, Kagan and Jackson ed in the over-arching ruling, but on the matter of interpretation, wrote a separate opinion noting that the case should be decided on precedent, not policy. Justice Gorsuch recused himself from the arguments.

Copyright 2025 Gray DC. All rights reserved.