WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court appears to be willing to find for supporters of the Uinta Basin Railway in their appeal of a decision blocking construction of the Utah rail line — even if they have some issues with the method suggested by a lawyer for determining the adequacy of environmental reviews at the heart of the case.
The case argued today (Dec. 10) specifically seeks to overturn a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. That court ruled that a Surface Transportation Board decision allowing construction of the railway had not sufficiently considered downstream effects of the drilling and refinining of the oil the 88-mile railroad would move [see “Federal court strikes down approval …,” Trains News Wire, Aug. 18, 2023]. But the Supreme Court’s ruling will shape the scope of other environmental impact reports required under the 1970 National Environmental Policy Act.
A lawyer for the Seven County Infrastructure Coalition — the Utah governmental body supporting construction of the rail line — argued that the STB “was not heedless of environmental effects”when it found that the line would have negative impacts, but not enough to keep it from being built. The New York Times reports attorney Paul D. Clement noted the board had consulted with “dozens of agencies” and imposed 91 mitigation measures. He said agencies should not be required to consider impacts that are “remote in time and space” and reach into areas addressed by other regulators.
While Justices indicated some support for that concept, they had concerns whether it was adequate, the Times reports, with Chief Justice John G. Roberts saying he had trouble seeing how it would “work out as a practical matter,” while Justice Elena Kagen said that test might not work for other projects. Politico reports that Justice Brett Kavanaugh said courts seemed to be taking an “overly aggressive role” in NEPA cases, which has led agencies to do more than the law requires.
Assistant Solicitor General Edwin S. Kneedler, meanwhile, said an agency “should take into account indirect effects, too, which are not just immediate effects of the project.”
The Washington Post reports that the questioning of lawyers for both sides suggests Justices may be seeking a middle ground between the positions of each side, which would narrow the scope of environmental reviews without setting absolute standards.
Arguments were held before an eight-member court. Justice Neil Gorsuch recused himself from the case, apparently because of work in private practice for Colorado billionaire Philip Anschutz, whose companies include one involved in oil exploration in Utah [see “Supreme Court justice will not take part …,” News Wire, Dec. 5, 2024].
Vincint: Great comment. Those whacos should all be required to read. They should be liable for the delay costs. Only that will stop the “free shot” activists.
If the decision has any remedy based on common sense and not irrational ideologies based on worst case scenarios, the decision should be relatively short in coming. I believe all such cases should be decided on the merits of the law as it was written, not legislated by activist judges. Only Congress has the right to legislate law and under our separation of powers, courts only have the right to determine if a case meets the terms of the law. As related the STB approved this project with 91 stipulations meant to mitigate the project actions and meet the EPA Act . That is all the Seven County wanted: to know what they had to do to meet the law. And that is what they got until the Colorado environmentalists decided that their cause was more important than the rights of the large majority of the citizens of Utah and the United States itself. Is it any wonder that it took 3 years to approve reactivity on a dormant seven mile branch line in the Utah west desert? After all, isn’t the job of the STB to adjudicate within their designated powers to enhance rail traffic and construction in this country? Well, they won’t be doing any building of rail lines as long as all these environmentalist insist on laying their bodies in front of reasonable projects approved by government agencies empowered to do so law. If not then why even have the STB, the Forest Service, the BLM or the Bureau of Indian Affairs, all parties who blessed this project which was hope to be constructed and operating by now at no cost to tax payers, by the way. Maybe they should have to pay all the costs of delay if and when the SCOTUS finally decides in favors of the UBR and the SCIC, which is what should reasonable happen. But then, when did common sense and reasonableness ever matter? Only to the founders who must have been thinking of the KISS principle…
How long do the parties have to wait to get a decision? Hopefully it will be quick and not 3 years.
MOst people think a decision will be rendered by early summer of 2025, maybe before. Of course the environmentalist have vowed to fight on. They should be forced to pay for al l delays. (imo)