The Supreme Court appears likely to rein in the scope of one of the nation's bedrock environmental laws after oral arguments on Tuesday.
|
© AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais, File |
During oral arguments, several of the court’s conservative justices signaled that they could support at least some limits on the scope of which environmental impacts need to be considered in government decision-making.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh argued that courts, which have struck down some environmental reviews as insufficient, have taken an “overly aggressive” role and incentivized agencies to take on sprawling environmental reviews.
The outcome of the case could have major implications: Limiting such consideration could impact a range of decisions, including whether to approve oil and gas drilling, mining projects, pipelines, logging, highways and more.
The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires consideration of environmental impacts before these projects are approved — and the results of that evaluation could lead to mandated mitigation of environmental harms. At issue in the case is whether and when upstream and downstream environmental impacts should be considered as part of these environmental reviews.
The court’s conservative majority appeared to lean toward a lawyer representing a railway company and Utah counties, who argued that upstream and downstream effects should not be considered when they are “remote” in time and space.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett raised practical concerns about the government’s future ability to evaluate downstream environmental impacts in light of a 2023 law that limited such reviews to 150 pages.
“It’s going to be impossible for agencies to consider as many downstream and upstream effects just because of the procedural constraints,” she said.
However, liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor said the arguments in favor of curtailing the environmental law, presented by lawyer Paul Clement, “doesn’t make much sense in the statutory scheme.”
“Most environmental effects…are going to be sometimes remote in time and geography,” she said. Read more at TheHill.com. |
Welcome to The Hill’s Energy & Environment newsletter, we’re Rachel Frazin and Zack Budryk — keeping you up to speed on the policies impacting everything from oil and gas to new supply chains.
|
