May 29, 2025

DENVER – Today, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down a unanimous victory in a case regarding environmental analysis on infrastructure, energy, and natural resource projects. Western Energy Alliance praised the decision that provides instruction on how a lower court should properly determine the scope of National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) analyses in Seven County Infrastructure Coalition and Uinta Basin Railway, LLC v. Eagle County, Colorado et al. The Alliance submitted an amicus brief in support of petitioner Mountain States Legal Foundation along with the American Forestry Resource Council.

“In terms of winning at the Supreme Court, this case is the ‘Little Engine That Could.’ The proposed Uinta Railway is a small project in a rural Utah. Yet, it persevered against tough legal odds stacked against it by groups opposed to any project advancing oil and gas development,” said Melissa Simpson, president of the Alliance. “We’re pleased by the Supreme Court’s willingness to take up a NEPA case—the first in about two decades—and wrestle with some of the stickiest issues. Today’s unanimous ruling sends a powerful message to district courts who are solicited to hear cases because opposition groups know the judge’s proclivity to halt energy projects, even vacate them entirely. We hope today’s ruling will help hem in activist judges and provide better legal protections for proponents of infrastructure projects. The case also shows how important it is for Congress to step in and pass permitting reforms. Lawmakers can play an important role in further clarifying in the law and preventing yearslong legal showdowns over infrastructure projects.”

The Supreme Court ruled that following extensive environmental reviews and public input, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals improperly overturned a U. S. Surface Transportation Board’s approval of a proposed 88-mile rail line that would facilitate oil production in Utah and refining in the Gulf Coast. The decision stated the D.C. Circuit Court “incorrectly interpreted NEPA to require the Board to consider the environmental effects of upstream and downstream projects that are separate in time or place from the Uinta Basin Railway.”

The Alliance’s amicus encouraged the court to take on the issue of providing guardrails around NEPA analyses by clarifying that the scope should be limited to the jurisdiction of the agency and focused on the proximate time and space impacts of the project.

# # #