The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled unanimously to lift a stay on construction of the Uinta Basin Railway—a proposed 88-mile rail line that would carry up to 350,000 barrels of oil per day from northeastern Utah to Gulf Coast refineries.
Utah officials and the Seven County Infrastructure Coalition—backers of the project—say the railway will improve safety by reducing reliance on truck transport and bring economic opportunity to rural counties in the Uinta Basin. Study of a potential rail line began back in 2013, and the Surface Transportation Board approved the construction of the Uinta Basin Railway in 2021.
Environmental groups, along with local governments like Eagle County, challenged the approval in Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County, saying that the decision didn’t adhere to the National Environmental Policy Act—a federal law that requires agencies to assess the environmental consequences of major projects.
What the Ruling Says
In its ruling, the Supreme Court did not touch on whether the Surface Transportation Board’s environmental review complied with NEPA—that question is still before the D.C. Circuit Court. The justices only allowed the project to move forward while the legal challenge continues.
Writing for the Court, Justice Brett Kavanaugh said that federal agencies are only required to evaluate the environmental impacts directly tied to their decisions—not every potential consequence of a project like increased drilling or refining.
The transportation board “did not need to address the environmental effects of upstream oil drilling or downstream oil refining,” the court’s unanimous ruling read. “Rather, it needed to address only the effects of the 88-mile railroad line. And the board’s (study) did so.”
What’s Next?
The Supreme Court’s ruling doesn’t change NEPA itself, but it does send a message: federal agencies only need to study the environmental effects of what they directly approve—like a rail line—not what might happen because of it, like more oil drilling or refining.
“NEPA does not allow courts, ‘under the guise of judicial review’ of agency compliance with NEPA, to delay or block agency projects based on the environmental effects of other projects separate from the project at hand,” the decision states.
That narrower view of NEPA could shape how future projects are reviewed. Some legal experts say it may make it harder for communities to challenge controversial projects by pointing to broader climate or watershed impacts.
For now, this case returns to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, which will decide whether the Surface Transportation Board’s environmental review under NEPA was legally sufficient.
Appreciate the coverage? Help keep local news alive.
Chip in to support the Moab Sun News.