Supreme Court Ruling Speeds Environmental Reviews, Limits Legal Challenges to Energy and Infrastructure Projects

On May 29, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision in Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County, Colorado, a case concerning the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) that limits judicial review of environmental analyses prepared by agencies and will make it harder for project opponents to block projects. The decision, combined with recent initiatives by the Trump administration targeted at reducing regulatory requirements, has implications for regulated industries that are likely to see faster environmental reviews and greater deference to agencies as to their decision-making processes.

The Seven County Case

The Seven County case concerned the environmental review of a proposed railroad in Utah. The railroad would connect the Uinta Basin, which has untapped oil and gas resources, to the national railway network so that oil and gas can be shipped to refineries on the Gulf Coast.

The U.S. Surface Transportation Board (STB), an independent federal agency created in 1996 following the elimination of the Interstate Commerce Commission, must approve the construction and operation of new railroads under 49 U.S.C. § 10901. Like all federal agencies, the STB must comply with NEPA and analyze the “reasonably foreseeable environmental effects of the proposed agency action” before making final decisions, as required under 42 U.S.C. § 4332(2)(C)(i). The STB prepared a lengthy environmental impact statement (EIS) in 2020–21 for the proposed railroad that focused on the immediate effects of construction and operation of the railroad itself. The EIS had only a limited discussion of how building the railroad might induce additional oil and gas production in the Uinta Basin, increase the use of refineries along the Gulf Coast, and how these other projects caused by railroad construction could increase emissions of greenhouse gases that contribute to global climate change.

The STB approved the railroad, and project opponents challenged that decision in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. The D.C. Circuit ruled that the EIS violated NEPA because there was inadequate evaluation of increased oil and gas production, refining, and greenhouse gas emissions, which the court held were reasonably foreseeable effects of building the new railroad. Based on its holding that the STB had violated NEPA, the D.C. Circuit vacated the STB’s approval and remanded the matter to the agency to study those effects further.

The Supreme Court reversed the D.C. Circuit in an 8–0 decision, with five justices joining the majority opinion. First, the court held that NEPA does not require the analysis of effects of “other future or geographically separate projects that may be built (or expanded) as a result of or in the wake of the immediate project under consideration.” This is especially true where the agency “possesses no regulatory authority over those separate projects.” That holding meant that the STB had no obligation to study the effects of potential future drilling projects in the Uinta Basin, future increases in oil and gas refining along the Gulf Coast, and potential future increases in greenhouse gas emissions that could result from projects that could develop as a result of the new railroad.

Second, the court used the case to “reiterate and clarify the fundamental principles of judicial review” applicable to project challenges and stated that “the central principle of judicial review in NEPA cases is deference.” The court chided some lower courts for engaging in “overly intrusive (and unpredictable) review in NEPA cases” that has “slowed down or blocked many projects.” Instead, courts should not “excessively second-guess[]” the level of detail in a NEPA review (“Brevity should not be mistaken for lack of detail”), an agency’s assessment of “what qualifies as significant or feasible or the like,” or the “scope of environmental effects that [an EIS] will address.”

Third, the court indicated that lower courts should not necessarily vacate agency project approvals even if there are violations of NEPA. NEPA imposes only procedural duties on agencies to study environmental effects before they act. This means that “[e]ven if an EIS falls short in some respects, that deficiency may not necessarily require a court to vacate the agency’s ultimate approval of a project, at least absent reason to believe that the agency might disapprove the project if it added more to the EIS.” When a court remands a NEPA analysis to an agency for further review, but does not vacate the approval, it means that the project can continue to move forward while the further review takes place.

Implications for Regulated Sectors

The Seven County decision, combined with recent executive orders by the Trump administration, likely ushers in a new era for NEPA compliance and litigation over projects in the energy, infrastructure, and transportation sectors. It also carries implications for other industries subject to regulatory oversight. There are immediate and obvious benefits for the energy, infrastructure, and transportation sectors.

First, the case limits the scope of agency analysis for greenhouse gas emissions and climate change effects of projects. Almost every infrastructure project is likely to have some direct effect on greenhouse gas emissions. For example, trains operating along the new railroad in the Seven County case will likely emit some greenhouse gases. However, some portion — even a substantial portion — of the emissions may come from other developments that are induced by an agency’s approval of the infrastructural project. For example, building the railroad (or pipeline) may lead to increased drilling in areas benefited by the railroad. By limiting analyses to only the direct effects of the project under review, and not the effect of other projects that could foreseeably occur as a result of the project under review, the Supreme Court has effectively eliminated the requirement that an agency consider all of the ways that a project may increase greenhouse gas emissions. Narrowing the scope of required review will greatly benefit businesses in the energy, infrastructure, and transportation sectors that need federal approvals subject to NEPA.

Second, the case will make it harder for project opponents to win NEPA challenges and block project approvals. NEPA is one of the most common statutes invoked by parties seeking to block energy and infrastructure projects. By instructing courts to be substantially more deferential to agencies’ factual determinations and analysis in their NEPA documents, the Supreme Court has sent a signal that lower courts should be less inclined to find violations of NEPA. Perhaps more importantly, the Supreme Court indicated that a violation of NEPA should not necessarily be grounds to vacate a project approval, which means that project opponents could win their case but still not block the project they oppose. These aspects of the case reduce the risk for project proponents that agency approvals could be overturned in court. The Seven County decision is a self-described “course correction of sorts” that should reduce the risk for project proponents that agency approvals of infrastructure and energy projects could be overturned in court.

Third, the Seven County case may lead agencies to prepare shorter, faster environmental reviews. Compliance with NEPA is often the most time-consuming aspect of the federal permitting process, with most of that time spent preparing detailed, lengthy analyses of  the ways an action could affect the environment. The length of that review process has increased dramatically over the years in part because agencies want to make sure that they do not lose a NEPA challenge after they approve a controversial project. The Seven County case indicates that agencies are likely to be given much more deference by courts in how they prepare their NEPA reviews, which over time should encourage agencies not to err on the side of additional analysis and review.

This dovetails with President Trump’s executive orders aimed at minimizing regulatory burdens. Executive Order 14154 directed the Council on Environmental Quality to rescind its governmentwide regulations that established detailed procedures for how agencies should conduct NEPA analyses, which means that there are fewer procedural requirements on agencies. The Supreme Court in Seven County did not even reference those former regulations despite their being a central part of the D.C. Circuit decision, which signals that their requirements are no longer important. Executive Orders 14154 and 14156 also order federal agencies to conduct much quicker NEPA reviews for energy projects, which almost certainly will result in shorter NEPA documents. Since the Supreme Court ruled that “[b]revity should not be mistaken for lack of detail,” shorter documents should pose less litigation risk. The administration also is working to increase the use of software and other technology to streamline federal environmental reviews. The administration’s aggressive approach to speeding up federal environmental reviews has been somewhat scattershot and could lead to slowdowns for some projects in the short term. Over time, however, the effects of all of these developments and the Seven County case should speed up federal environmental reviews and reduce the risk that project opponents can use NEPA to block agency approvals.