The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Thursday to limit the power of federal judges to block infrastructure projects based on environmental concerns, siding with agencies over courts in decisions tied to project approvals.
In an 8–0 ruling, the Court sided with the Seven County Infrastructure Coalition (SCIC) in its bid to build an 88-mile railway through Utah’s Uinta Basin. The justices clarified that the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) does not require federal agencies to consider the environmental impact of unrelated or downstream projects that might arise in the future.
“NEPA does not allow courts, ‘under the guise of judicial review’…to delay or block agency projects based on the environmental effects of other projects separate from the project at hand,” wrote Justice Brett Kavanaugh in the majority opinion.
The ruling directly addresses the increasing use of environmental laws to stall or halt federally backed infrastructure efforts—a tactic that has drawn fierce criticism from conservatives, including President Donald Trump. The president has long voiced frustration with environmental reviews that cause years of costly delays to energy and transportation projects.
At the heart of the case was a plan to construct a rail line connecting Utah’s oil-rich Uinta Basin to national markets via the Gulf Coast. The Surface Transportation Board (STB) approved the project in 2021, but opponents in Eagle County, Colorado, sued, claiming the STB’s environmental review failed to account for the broader impact of increased oil production and refining.
A lower court agreed, halting the project. But the Supreme Court reversed that decision, emphasizing that NEPA’s scope is limited to direct consequences of the specific project under review.
“Courts should afford substantial deference and should not micromanage those agency choices so long as they fall within a broad zone of reasonableness,” Kavanaugh wrote. He added that while certain indirect effects—such as pollution runoff or air emissions—can be considered, agencies are not required to evaluate the hypothetical impacts of separate, future developments.
The ruling also limits the judiciary’s ability to impose nationwide injunctions, a practice increasingly criticized by Republican lawmakers seeking to remove regulatory obstacles to American energy production.
Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA), who chairs the Senate Judiciary Committee, recently called such orders “an unconstitutional abuse of judicial power.”
Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, filed a separate concurring opinion, ultimately agreeing with the majority that the STB was not required to consider the environmental effects of third-party oil development and refining activities. Justice Neil Gorsuch recused himself from the case.
Critics of the decision, including Rep. Diana DeGette (D-CO), argued that it could limit government accountability and worsen environmental risks tied to oil and gas development. Environmental groups echoed her concerns, warning that the decision could narrow federal review of fossil fuel projects moving forward.
But for supporters of economic growth, energy independence, and constitutional limits on judicial activism, the ruling is a major step toward restoring the balance of power and clearing the path for vital infrastructure development.
The Court’s message is clear: judges are not policymakers—and NEPA cannot be used as a backdoor to stall the nation’s progress.