The U.S. Supreme Court appears poised to narrow the scope of environmental impact reviews, potentially affecting approvals for major projects like oil drilling and mining.
Rachel Frazin reports for The Hill.
In short:
- Conservative justices questioned whether federal agencies should consider indirect, "remote" environmental impacts during reviews.
- Justice Kavanaugh suggested courts have been too strict, leading to overly broad environmental assessments.
- The case centers on a proposed Utah railway, with potential impacts on oil production and refining under debate.
Key quote:
“It’s going to be impossible for agencies to consider as many downstream and upstream effects just because of the procedural constraints.”
— Justice Amy Coney Barrett
Why this matters:
Narrowing environmental reviews under NEPA could speed up projects but reduce consideration of long-term harms, affecting air, water and climate. This shift may limit the federal government's role in protecting the environment, impacting health and ecosystems nationwide.
Learn more: The Supreme Court to reconsider NEPA scope for environmental reviews
