Today, the Supreme Court made clear that the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) does not require agencies to chase every speculative possibility, nor to paralyze progress under the weight of endless litigation brought by “anti-everything” groups. This ruling is a critical step toward restoring sanity to a system that has long turned environmental review into an instrument of obstruction. For decades, these groups have improperly wielded NEPA not as a tool for informed decision-making, but as a legal weapon to stall energy, mining, transportation, forest health, grazing, and even recreation projects vital to our national interest. By rejecting this misuse, the Court has affirmed that NEPA is nothing more than a modest procedural requirement that asks federal regulators to pause, think about what they are doing, and explain it. It is not a means for “anti-everything” groups to stop projects that they do not like, nor for federal judges to put themselves in the regulators’ shoes just because the judges want different substantive outcomes.
Mountain States Legal Foundation is proud to have represented the American Forest Resource Council and Western Energy Alliance as amici in this landmark case, and we commend the Court for its clarity in reaffirming that judicial review must not let courtroom second-guessing stand in the way of progress.
Mountain States Legal Foundation senior attorney Ivan London says, “This ruling should serve as a guidepost for lower courts and federal agencies alike: NEPA is not a command to stand still or, worse, to abandon progress altogether—it is a directive to federal agencies that they must move forward, serve the public interest, and be reasonable. Mountain States Legal Foundation remains committed to defending responsible land and energy management against ideological and procedural abuse.”
“In terms of winning at the Supreme Court, this case is the ‘Little Engine That Could.’ The proposed Uinta Railway is a small project in a rural Utah. Yet, it persevered against tough legal odds stacked against it by groups opposed to any project advancing oil and gas development,” said Melissa Simpson, president of the Western Energy Alliance. “We’re pleased by the Supreme Court’s willingness to take up a NEPA case—the first in about two decades—and wrestle with some of the stickiest issues. Today’s unanimous ruling sends a powerful message to district courts who are solicited to hear cases because opposition groups know the judge’s proclivity to halt energy projects, even vacate them entirely. We hope today’s ruling will help hem in activist judges and provide better legal protections for proponents of infrastructure projects. The case also shows how important it is for Congress to step in and pass permitting reforms. Lawmakers can play an important role in further clarifying the law and preventing yearslong legal showdowns over infrastructure projects.”
“AFRC is pleased to see the Supreme Court address the substantial roadblock NEPA has become, despite the fact that the Act is merely a procedural statute that should help inform agency decision-making. The Supreme Court has recognized that for decades project opponents have weaponized NEPA, not to improve agency decision-making, but to delay or stop responsible agency action, such as forest management projects that protect communities and public resources,” says General Counsel Sara Ghafouri of American Forest Resource Council. “These lawsuits mistakenly demand exhaustive analysis of remote impacts, stretching NEPA documents into the thousands of pages and dragging reviews on for several years. AFRC is grateful that the Supreme Court has corrected the aggressive and overly intrusive role that some courts have taken in reviewing an agency’s compliance under NEPA and reasserted that courts must be deferential to the agency. We are hopeful this ruling sets a clear precedent for restoring common sense to NEPA analysis and deferential judicial review, allowing land managers to move forward with projects that reduce catastrophic wildfire risks, restore forest health, and build more resilient landscapes.”