Post

Conversation

SCOTUS Seven County decision is out! TLDR: It’s a big deal, it limits NEPA, it’s better than expected, BUT… there’s still uncertainty. The ruling does two things: - Calls for giving agencies more discretion - Sets clear limits on what EIS reviews have to consider

(1/14)

Seven County considers the approval of a railroad connecting oil fields in Utah with oil refiners. The DC Circuit had overturned the railroad’s NEPA review, saying they had not adequately analyzed the costs of increasing oil production & refining. (2/14)

The Reasonably Foreseeable Effects of Seven County Infrastructure Coalition | Bracewell LLP

Seven County brought the case to SCOTUS arguing NEPA does not require them to analyze projects they do not control (oil production & refining) — they just need to analyze the environmental effects of clearing land and building a railroad extension. (3/14)

Aidan Mackenzie

@AidanRMackenzie

14h

SCOTUS decision is a victory for limiting NEPA The first component of the decision is a clear call for giving agencies more *discretion* when preparing NEPA analyses, (i.e. how much leeway should agencies get when complying with NEPA) (4/14)

Quote

James Coleman

@EnergyLawProf

20h

Replying to @EnergyLawProf

"'When an agency makes those kinds of speculative assessments or predictive or scientific judgments, and decides what qualifies as significant or feasible or the like, a reviewing court must be at its 'most deferential.'”

NEPA exists to ensure agencies make informed decisions. Therefore, SCOTUS holds that agencies should be given wide-ranging discretion on how much an agency analyzes in their NEPA review… - Agencies should get to decide what info they need and what info they don’t need (5/14)

SCOTUS clarifies that courts should only concern themselves with whether agencies explained their decision in a reasonable way, -NOT whether agencies evaluated everything a judge thinks they should have analyzed and -NOT whether a court agrees with the final decision. (6/14)

SCOTUS even flirts with a “harmless error” standard, holding that courts “may not necessarily” need to overturn agency decisions unless doing more review would result in a decision against building the project. Unfortunately, the court doesn't require this test. (7/14)

The second part of the decision is setting formal tests for what sorts of environmental effects are not required in EIS reviews. The court rules that agencies are not responsible for analyzing the effects of separate projects that may result from the project at hand. (8/14)

For Seven County this means the railroad just needs to analyze building a railroad — whether oil extraction and refining occur as a result is a matter for a different project and different NEPA decision. Upstream and downstream impacts are out of NEPA! (9/14)

Also, SCOTUS reiterates its decision from 2004 that an agency must be legally responsible for an effect if it is required to analyze it. This could significantly curtail analysis, but only if lower courts head SCOUTS’s decision this time (10/14).

So how much will this ruling accomplish? There are competing views. Taken at face value this ruling would significantly curtail judicial review of NEPA. But lower may find ways to shoehorn their decisions into the new framework See Chris's thread(11/14)

Quote

Chris Elmendorf

@CSElmendorf

17h

Excellent

on Abundance vibes in today's U.S. Supreme Court NEPA decision.

But much the same could have been written in 1979, about Vt. Yankee, or 1989, about Robertson v. Methow Valley. So will the new vibes make much difference? I'm doubtful. 1/4 x.com/RickPildes/sta…

1.2K

Aidan Mackenzie

@AidanRMackenzie

IMO this decision will help but we still need Congress! SCOUTS is 100% right to increase deference for agencies. But ultimately Congress will need to step in and create a bright line rule. It’s still too easy for lower courts to wiggle out of giving agencies deference (12/14)

12:59 PM · May 29, 2025

785

Views

Post your reply

Aidan Mackenzie

@AidanRMackenzie

14h

This ruling will help to limit the attack surface for NEPA litigation. Upstream and downstream effects are now out and the SCOTUS was clear that it expects lower courts to allow agencies to move faster. (13/14)

We can’t fix judicial review in the most activist courts without an act of Congress but I expect this to help on an important margin. Also shout out to Brett Kavanaugh for being full abundance-pilled here (14/14)

751

The Washington Post

@washingtonpost

The 12 Democrats who make the most sense for 2028.

There’s a vacuum atop the Democratic Party. Here’s who could fill it.

From washingtonpost.com

25M

To view keyboard shortcuts, press question markView keyboard shortcuts

Post

Conversation

To view keyboard shortcuts, press question mark
View keyboard shortcuts