On June 11, the Supreme Court issued a major decision in Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County, Colorado that could reshape how infrastructure projects are reviewed, approved, and challenged under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
In a new episode of the Legal Download podcast, we unpacked the opinion—and what it means for agencies, project sponsors, and NEPA itself.
Listen now: The Future of NEPA: Supreme Court Signals a
Reset
Available on Apple, Spotify, and SoundCloud
Why This Case Matters
Seven County is the Court's most consequential NEPA ruling in decades. The decision restores agency discretion, narrows the scope of environmental reviews, and makes it harder for courts to vacate permits based on perceived procedural flaws.
The case involved a proposed 88-mile rail line approved by the Surface Transportation Board (STB) to support oil transport. The agency prepared a 3,600-page Environmental Impact Statement but declined to deeply analyze indirect upstream or downstream impacts. A lower court vacated the project approval—but the Supreme Court unanimously reversed.
Key Takeaways
- Judicial Deference Reaffirmed
The Court emphasized that judges must defer to agency expertise under the Administrative Procedure Act. As long as the agency's decision is reasonable and well explained, it stands. - Limits on Indirect Impact Analysis
NEPA does not require agencies to analyze environmental impacts outside their jurisdiction. In this case, STB was not required to model emissions from upstream drilling or downstream combustion. - Narrower Remedies for NEPA Flaws
Courts should only vacate an agency decision if the procedural error would likely have changed the outcome. This new standard limits project-stalling litigation over minor technical issues. - Practical Implications
The ruling may accelerate permitting timelines, reduce litigation risk, and re-anchor NEPA as a procedural—not substantive—statute. This is welcome news for developers and agencies alike.
What Comes Next
Agencies are revising their NEPA procedures in light of evolving CEQ guidance. This decision offers much-needed clarity and could shape future rulemaking and potential legislative reforms.
As Wayne noted in the episode, the ruling helps reset NEPA to its original, process-focused intent—limiting its use as a proxy for broader policy battles.
Frances added that the Court's emphasis on agency discretion could ease litigation burdens and help regulators focus on projects that truly require judicial review.
Final Thought
This isn't just a technical case. It's a signal to courts, agencies, and litigants that NEPA is a tool for informed decision-making—not an open-ended mandate for delay.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
