A Supreme Court decision narrows NEPA requirements for analyzing the potential environmental effects of secondary development projects.
In a May 2025 ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously asserted that reviews conducted under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) are not required to consider certain upstream or downstream impacts of an infrastructure project.
NEPA is an environmental law requiring agencies to consider and disclose the effects of their actions on the quality of the human environment and any reasonable alternatives before deciding how and why to proceed with a project. The ensuing environmental analyses and documentation foster well-informed decisions and transparency.
The Court’s decision narrowed the scope of NEPA, potentially making it easier to receive approval for highways, bridges, pipelines, wind farms, and other infrastructure projects.
Lower Court Ruling for Crude Oil Transportation
The case concerned the proposed building of an 88-mile stretch of railroad in Utah, designed to facilitate transportation of crude oil to refineries along the Gulf Coast. A lower court ruled the government’s environmental review and analysis was inadequate as it did not account for the railway project’s impact on increased oil production and refining.
The Supreme Court disagreed in a majority opinion written by Justice Brett Kavanaugh. The opinion stated that when potential environmental effects arise from a separate project (whether separated geographically or by time), NEPA regulations do not require the agency to evaluate and consider the effects of that separate project.
NEPA Scope for Evaluating Indirect Environmental Impacts
The majority opinion went on to argue that an environmental review may consider indirect impacts of a specific development if the project itself could contribute its own negative impacts, regardless of time or place. For example, river run-off flowing many miles from a project may affect fish populations in a separate geographical area. In this instance, NEPA regulations would still apply.
However, if the specified project could lead to construction or increased use of a separate project, the agency is not required to consider the potential environmental impacts of that secondary project. For example, a proposed highway project is not required to consider the potential impacts of a future housing development being built in that area. The housing development would be considered a secondary project, not connected to potential implications stemming from the primary project at hand.
The Supreme Court directed lower courts to defer to agency determinations when drawing the line between indirect impacts and secondary project impacts. Arguing that NEPA is purely a procedural statute not meant to be a roadblock, the Court’s ruling is meant to alleviate project approval delays and expedite completion.
Potential Concerns for Limiting Environmental Review
As the Court’s ruling narrows NEPA’s power to determine potential environmental concerns, it’s important to consider all implications of the decision. While this decision may result in reduced environmental oversight, the decision could lead to supplementary concerns, such as:
- Weakened climate change considerations: Efforts to integrate climate change impacts into infrastructure projects may be hindered.
- Increased risk to ecosystems and public health: Without a requirement to consider secondary ecological consequences, projects could be approved without a full understanding of factors such as wildlife habitats, water quality, air pollution, and more.
- Increased Discretion for Federal Agencies: The Court’s deference to agency judgment could lead to inconsistent NEPA applications and the potential to sidestep environmental reviews.
- Legal Uncertainty: While the ruling’s aim may be to streamline project approvals, it could instead increase litigation in the short term as courts and agencies determine the new boundaries of NEPA compliance.
Looking Ahead to Balance Progress and Environmental Responsibility
The Supreme Court’s NEPA decision marks a significant shift in how environmental reviews are conducted for development or infrastructure projects moving forward. While it may streamline the approval process and reduce red tape, the ruling also raises critical concerns about unexamined impacts on long-term environmental and public health.
As agencies and stakeholders adjust to a narrower NEPA scope, it is essential to balance development goals with environmental stewardship. Third-party consultants, like FirstCarbon Solutions (FCS), have expertise specific in navigating the complexities of NEPA permitting following this ruling. A strong consultant team can assist you from start to finish in the NEPA environment review and analysis process, and help ensure you remain in compliance with your project, regardless of current or future legislative changes.
