Supreme Court Establishes Broad Deference Standard for Agency NEPA Review in Energy Infrastructure Cases
The Supreme Court reversed the D.C. Circuit's vacatur of the Surface Transportation Board's approval of an 88-mile railroad connecting Utah's oil-rich Uinta Basin to the national freight network, holding that courts must afford agencies substantial deference in determining the depth and breadth of environmental impact statement inquiries under NEPA. Justice Kavanaugh's majority opinion, joined by four other Justices, establishes that courts should not micromanage agency choices about environmental review so long as those choices fall within a broad zone of reasonableness.
Background and Procedural History
The Seven County Infrastructure Coalition, representing seven Utah counties, sought Surface Transportation Board approval for construction of an 88-mile railroad line designed to connect oil-rich rural areas in northeastern Utah to the national freight rail network. Environmental organizations and Eagle County, Colorado filed consolidated petitions for review in the D.C. Circuit, challenging the Board's final order on National Environmental Policy Act grounds. The D.C. Circuit, in an opinion by Circuit Judge Wilkins, vacated the Board's order and remanded, concluding that the environmental impact statement inadequately addressed reasonably foreseeable environmental impacts of increased oil drilling and refining that would result from improved transportation infrastructure.
The Central Legal Issue
The case presented a fundamental question about the appropriate standard of judicial review for agency compliance with NEPA's procedural requirements. Specifically, the Court addressed whether the D.C. Circuit improperly substituted its judgment for the agency's by demanding greater depth and breadth in the environmental analysis of downstream oil production and refining impacts. The dispute centered on the scope of environmental effects that must be analyzed in an EIS for energy transportation infrastructure, and the degree of deference courts must afford agency determinations about the appropriate boundaries of environmental review.
The Supreme Court's Analysis
Writing for the majority, Justice Kavanaugh was joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Thomas, Alito, and Barrett. Justice Gorsuch took no part in the consideration or decision of the case. The Court held that the D.C. Circuit "did not afford [the] Board substantial deference required by NEPA" when it concluded the EIS insufficiently addressed impacts of increased oil drilling or refining.
The majority emphasized that NEPA "imposes no substantive environmental obligations or restrictions and is a purely procedural statute that simply requires an agency to prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS)—in essence, a report." The Court articulated the applicable standard of review, holding that "courts reviewing an environmental impact statement (EIS) for compliance with NEPA should afford substantial deference and should not micromanage an agency's choices about the depth and breadth of its inquiry, so long as the choices fall within a broad zone of reasonableness."
Applying this standard, the Court concluded that the Board's EIS for the railroad project complied with NEPA. The Court reversed the D.C. Circuit's judgment and remanded the case. Justice Sotomayor filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, in which Justices Kagan and Jackson joined.