Supreme Court Upholds Broad Agency Discretion In Defining Scope Of Environmental Impact Statements Under NEPA
Client Alert | May 29, 2025
Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County, Colorado, No. 23-975 – Decided May 29, 2025
Today, the Supreme Court held that agencies have broad discretion under NEPA in determining the scope and contents of an Environmental Impact Statement, and that agencies need not consider the indirect environmental effects of a project or factors outside the agency’s regulatory jurisdiction.
“The EIS need not address the effects of separate projects. In conducting [their] review, courts should afford substantial deference to the agency as to the scope and contents of the EIS.”
Justice Kavanaugh, writing for the Court
Background:
The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires federal agencies to consider the “reasonably foreseeable” environmental effects of permits and regulations that they issue. 42 U.S.C. § 4332(2)(C). Although NEPA does not impose substantive limits on what an agency may approve, it requires the agency to publish its analysis in an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) that is then incorporated into the agency’s order and subject to judicial review under the Administrative Procedure Act.
The Seven County Infrastructure Coalition sought approval from the Surface Transportation Board (STB) to build a rail line in a remote part of Utah that would be used primarily to transport locally produced oil to the national rail network. After completing a 3,600-page EIS, the STB approved an 88-mile rail line. Environmental groups and Eagle County, Colorado challenged the STB’s approval, arguing that the STB made unreasonable analytical mistakes by failing to properly consider the project’s indirect environmental effects such as the effect on national rail-network traffic, the development of new oil wells in Utah, and the overall volume of oil processing on the Gulf Coast that could lead to more pollution and greenhouse gas emissions.
The STB defended its environmental analysis on the merits, and the Coalition intervened to argue that any analytical shortcomings were not actionable under NEPA because any indirect effects were not “reasonably foreseeable” insofar as they were neither proximate to the project nor within the STB’s regulatory authority. The D.C. Circuit ruled for the challengers, vacated the STB’s approval, and remanded for further environmental review. The Coalition appealed.
Issue:
Whether NEPA requires an agency to study environmental impacts beyond the proximate effects of the action over which the agency has regulatory authority.
Court’s Holding:
No. NEPA does not require an agency to study environmental impacts beyond either the proximate effects of the action or the scope of the agency’s regulatory authority.
What It Means:
- Today’s decision will streamline federal permitting by limiting what agencies must consider in an EIS and limiting the ability of opponents to delay or defeat development projects through judicial challenges. The Court specifically noted that “NEPA has transformed from a modest procedural requirement into a blunt and haphazard tool employed by project opponents (who may not always be entirely motivated by concern for the environment) to try to stop or at least slow down new infrastructure and construction projects,” and expressed its goal of reversing this trend.
- As the Court explained, “NEPA is a procedural cross-check, not a substantive roadblock.” NEPA helps agencies be informed about the significant environmental effects of their actions by requiring the agencies to prepare a report identifying and discussing those effects. An EIS must evaluate the significant environmental effects of the project at hand that are within the agency’s regulatory jurisdiction, but the inclusion of other issues will generally be in the agency’s discretion.
- The Court emphasized that courts should afford “substantial deference to the agency” in reviewing the scope and contents of an EIS. The Court also noted that even a defective EIS does not require a court to vacate an approval of a project absent a reason to believe the mistake would lead the agency to disapprove the project.
The Court’s opinion is available here.
Gibson Dunn’s lawyers are available to assist in addressing any questions you may have regarding developments at the U.S. Supreme Court. Please feel free to contact the following practice group leaders:
Appellate and Constitutional Law
| Thomas H. Dupree Jr. +1 202.955.8547 tdupree@gibsondunn.com |
Allyson N. Ho +1 214.698.3233 aho@gibsondunn.com |
Julian W. Poon +1 213.229.7758 jpoon@gibsondunn.com |
| Lucas C. Townsend +1 202.887.3731 ltownsend@gibsondunn.com |
Bradley J. Hamburger +1 213.229.7658 bhamburger@gibsondunn.com |
Brad G. Hubbard +1 214.698.3326 bhubbard@gibsondunn.com |
Related Practice: Environmental Litigation and Mass Tort
| Stacie B. Fletcher +1 202.887.3627 sfletcher@gibsondunn.com |
Daniel W. Nelson +1 202.887.3687 dnelson@gibsondunn.com |
Related Practice: Land Use and Development
| Mary G. Murphy +1 415.393.8257 mgmurphy@gibsondunn.com |
Benjamin Saltsman +1 213.229.7480 bsaltsman@gibsondunn.com |
This alert was prepared by partner Samuel Eckman and associate Aaron Gyde.
© 2025 Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP. All rights reserved. For contact and other information, please visit us at www.gibsondunn.com.
Attorney Advertising: These materials were prepared for general informational purposes only based on information available at the time of publication and are not intended as, do not constitute, and should not be relied upon as, legal advice or a legal opinion on any specific facts or circumstances. Gibson Dunn (and its affiliates, attorneys, and employees) shall not have any liability in connection with any use of these materials. The sharing of these materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship with the recipient and should not be relied upon as an alternative for advice from qualified counsel. Please note that facts and circumstances may vary, and prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.