The U.S. Supreme Court today cleared a major hurdle for the construction of a proposed oil railway in northeastern Utah. The decision could bring sweeping changes to how federal agencies consider environmental impacts.
Though the case centered on the Uinta Basin Railway, the Supreme Court’s decision could limit the scope of environmental reviews that federal agencies are legally required to conduct.
The U.S. Supreme Court today cleared a major hurdle for the construction of a proposed oil railway in northeastern Utah. The decision could bring sweeping changes to how federal agencies consider environmental impacts.
The Uinta Basin Railway, if built, would connect the remote, oil-rich Uinta Basin to the national rail network — potentially quintupling oil production from the region, according to estimates from a 2021 environmental review.
The railroad would stretch 88 miles from the Uinta Basin to Helper, the location of terminals connecting to railroads that could send Utah’s oil to the Gulf Coast for refinement.
Though the case centered on the Uinta Basin Railway, the Supreme Court’s ruling may limit the scope of environmental reviews that federal agencies are legally required to conduct.
The justices heard oral arguments in December, after agreeing to hear the case last summer.
The Surface Transportation Board, the federal agency that regulates interstate rail transportation, approved the railway’s construction in 2021. But Eagle County, Colo., and the environmental nonprofit Center for Biological Diversity sued, arguing that the board did not fully analyze the railroad’s potential effects on communities on the Gulf Coast and along the Colorado River.
In 2023, the D.C. Circuit Court sided with the county and environmentalists, throwing out the federal agency’s approval. But the Seven County Infrastructure Coalition, which represents resource-rich counties in central and eastern Utah, appealed that decision to the nation’s highest court.
The Supreme Court reversed the lower court’s decision. The case will now be sent back to that court for further action.
The court’s opinion reads that the D.C. Circuit “incorrectly interpreted [the National Environmental Policy Act] to require the board to consider the environmental effects of upstream and downstream projects that are separate in time or place from the Uinta Basin Railway.”
“The ‘only role for a court’ is to confirm that the agency has addressed environmental consequences and feasible alternatives as to the relevant project,” reads the majority opinion by Justice Brett Kavanaugh.
Four conservative justices voted in support of Kavanaugh’s opinion. Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote a concurring opinion — agreeing with the result but not the reasoning — that the court’s other two liberal justices, Elena Kagan and Katanji Brown Jackson, supported. Justice Neil Gorsuch recused himself from the case in December due to potential financial conflicts of interest.
“This disastrous decision to undermine our nation’s bedrock environmental law means our air and water will be more polluted, the climate and extinction crises will intensify, and people will be less healthy,” said Center for Biological Diversity senior attorney Wendy Park.
The ruling “guarantees that bureaucrats can put their heads in the sand and ignore the harm federal projects will cause to ecosystems, wildlife and the climate,” she added,” but that the court’s decision doesn’t mean the Uinta Basin Railway will be built and that the center will continue to fight against that effort.
Utah Gov. Spencer Cox praised the Supreme Court’s decision Thursday for “affirm[ing] a balanced approach to environmental oversight.”
“The court rightly recognized that the National Environmental Policy Act is intended to inform agency decision-making — not to paralyze it with speculative analyses of distant, unrelated impacts,“ Cox said.
The governor called the railway a “critical infrastructure project” that will help America become more energy independent while creating an economic boost in rural Utah.
Paul Clement, a lawyer for Utah counties, argued in December that federal agencies should not have to consider environmental impacts that are “remote in time and space” and “within the jurisdiction of other agencies.” The railway’s opponents contended that federal law requires agencies to consider all foreseeable environmental impacts of potential projects.
Even with the high court’s decision, the Uinta Basin Railway will still require additional permitting and reviews before it can be built, including from the Surface Transportation Board, Bureau of Indian Affairs and Forest Service.
“This decision affirms the years of work and collaboration that have gone into making the Uinta Basin Railway a reality,” said Keith Heaton, director of the Seven County Infrastructure Coalition. “It represents a turning point for rural Utah — bringing safer, sustainable, more efficient transportation options, and opening new doors for investment and economic stability.”
Heaton told state lawmakers last week that the coalition hopes to begin construction “next year at this time.
This is a developing story.