Supreme Court Hears Dispute Over Environmental Review of Utah Rail Project

The U.S. Supreme Court in Washington on Dec. 2, 2024. Madalina Vasiliu/The Epoch Times

The Supreme Court is hearing oral argument on Dec. 10 over a federal agency’s decision to approve a Utah rail project that the state has said will boost economic opportunity in the region.

The project, known as the Uinta Basin Railway, would connect the northeastern region of the state to the national railway through a rail line spanning more than 80 miles. It would deliver goods, such as crude oil, from the basin to other areas of the country, including the Gulf Coast.

In August 2023, a federal appeals court ruled that the Surface Transportation Board (STB), which approved the project in 2021, failed to fully consider its environmental impacts under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), which requires agencies to conduct environmental reviews.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit said that NEPA required the STB to evaluate the effects of increased oil drilling and refining associated with the rail project.

“The Board also cannot avoid its responsibility under NEPA to identify and describe the environmental effects of increased oil drilling and refining on the ground that it lacks authority to prevent, control, or mitigate those developments,” the circuit court said.

A group of counties known as the Seven County Infrastructure Coalition and the rail line operator asked the Supreme Court to review the circuit court’s opinion. They said the District of Columbia Circuit’s interpretation would turn agencies into environmental policy czars.

“Boundless NEPA review hurts project proponents and the public too,” they said in March. “The time and expense of environmental review is a barrier to all kinds of new projects—including clean energy projects—that prevents some of them from ever getting off the ground.”

Eagle County, Colorado, and a host of environmental groups asked the Supreme Court in May not to take the case. They said that the STB’s authority was over the railway’s construction, and that included weighing the environmental effects against transportation benefits.

The circuit court had similarly said that the STB “concededly has exclusive jurisdiction over the construction and operation of the railway, including authority to deny the exemption petition if the environmental harm caused by the railway outweighs its transportation benefits.”

Oral argument will likely feature discussion of the Supreme Court’s 2004 decision in Department of Transportation v. Public Citizen. A majority, led by Justice Clarence Thomas, held in that case that the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration was not required to evaluate the environmental effects of Mexican motor carriers’ cross-border operations because it lacked discretion to prevent those activities.

The dispute over the Utah rail project has provoked input from multiple states, members of Congress, and environmental groups.

“The Railway will be critical infrastructure facilitating the flow of commodities to and from the Uintah Basin,” the state of Utah said in a brief to the Supreme Court in April. “It has the potential to open the region to entirely new markets that rely on freight shipping and to create jobs.” 

A series of Republican senators,  including Sens. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), and Mitt Romney (R-Utah), filed a brief in September warning about the impact on the nation’s energy security.

“The combined effect of the judicial and executive branch weaponization of NEPA is the frustration of congressionally directed efforts to responsibly develop the nation’s energy infrastructure, manage the nation’s resources, protect national security through energy independence, and promote the growth of the economy,” they said.

The District of Columbia Circuit’s view was supported by 30 members of the House and Senate. A group of Colorado communities also filed a brief warning that the STB’s analysis had “glaring defects” related to public health, safety, and other issues. Their brief, filed in October, also said the project would have “devastating consequences” for the communities.