The Supreme Court unanimously decided on Thursday to limit environmental reviews for major infrastructure projects in a case that will have sweeping impacts on President Donald Trump’s energy agenda.
In a move that will restrict power of federal judges, Thursday’s decision reduces the scope of reviews under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) to focus solely on immediate impacts. Under NEPA, federal agencies are required to study any potentially significant environmental consequences of federal permits for infrastructure projects.
“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,” Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote in the court’s opinion.
“Courts should afford substantial deference and should not micromanage those agency choices so long as they fall within a broad zone of reasonableness,” the opinion continued.
Kavanaugh further stated that agencies should not be expected to review the environmental impact of any project outside the one they are currently working on. This applies to”even if” possible environmental impacts “might extend outside the geographical territory of the project or materialize later in time.”
“The fact that the project might foreseeably lead to the construction or increased use of a separate project does not mean the agency must consider that separate project’s environmental effects,” the court ruled.
Thursday’s decision was a rare 8-0 ruling, with Justice Neil Gorsuch abstaining from the case. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Amy Coney Barrett joined with Kavanaugh’s opinion. Justice Sonia Sotomayor penned a separate concurring opinion, which was joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson.
The ruling comes as President Donald Trump has repeatedly argued that environmental regulations are hampering the administration’s energy agenda, which includes expansions in offshore drilling, fracking and enhanced refinery capabilities.
The U.S. Department of Justice recently filed lawsuits against four states, all of which have Democrat governors, over climate change directives the DOJ claims conflict with federal authority and President Donald Trump’s energy policies.
Lawsuits were first filed against Hawaii and Michigan over their planned legal action against fossil fuel companies for what they have described as adverse environmental effects. Additional legal action was taken against New York and Vermont over their respective climate superfund laws, which would require fossil fuel companies to pay into state-based funds based on previous greenhouse gas emissions.
Thursday’s decision also comes at a time when federal judges have issued a record number of injunctions aimed at thwarting the Trump agenda. Less than 24 hours before the environmental ruling was handed down, the U.S. Court of International Trade ruled that Trump has no constitutional authority to oppose tariffs under the Emergency Powers Act.
The Trump Administration responded by filing an immediate appeal.
“Universal injunctions are an unconstitutional abuse of judicial power,” Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-IA) told Fox News earlier this month.
“Just this past week, a D.C. district judge issued a universal injunction blocking the president’s executive order requiring voter ID or proof-of-citizenship prior to voting in national election,” he continued. “Judges are not policymakers.”
The Supreme Court is currently considering a case that could have major ramifications on the ability of federal judges to issue injunctions. A decision is expected within the next several weeks.
