The Supreme Court hears arguments in a case that could redefine environmental law.

On Tuesday, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments on a case that could alter a significant environmental law and decide the fate of an oil railway project in the west.

Federal agencies must conduct an environmental impact review and issue a detailed statement under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) before making any decisions.

The Supreme Court heard arguments in the Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County case, which concerned whether an agency must consider environmental impacts beyond the immediate effects of its regulatory authority. The justices seemed open to reevaluating the scope of NEPA, but did not specify how they would modify the law.

The SCIC requested the STB to construct an 80-mile transportation system linking crude oil from Utah's Uinta Basin to a national railway.

The Environmental Impact Statement on the railway released by the STB was opposed by Eagle County, Colorado, residents who claimed that the federal agency failed to consider all environmental effects, thus violating NEPA.

In March 2024, the case was brought to the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) by SCIC, who argued that STB had violated environmental law and that a new, more thorough review be conducted before the project moves forward.

The attorney supporting the SCIC project, Paul Clement, contended that the project is a simple matter and urged that NEPA be restricted to "proximate cause" standards.

On Tuesday, Clement stated that NEPA is a self-described procedural statute intended to inform government decision-making, not hinder it.

The D.C. court's request for further environmental review is a recipe for turning a procedural statute into a substantive roadblock, as Clement stated.

He stated during the oral arguments that all of that is not only distant in time and space but also goes beyond the STB's limited remand – remit, and it falls within the jurisdiction of other agencies that can handle those issues comprehensively and concretely if and when they arise.

The D.C. court's issuance of a new environmental review for the project may have been unnecessary, as several justices agreed.

"Justice Sonia Sotomayer stated that the issue was not whether it failed to look at something, but rather whether it was arbitrary and capricious in not considering something more."

Clement's request was questioned by the judges regarding its potential impact on the scope of environmental reviews, specifically for smaller or larger projects.

Clement stated that if the environmental impact statement concentrates on the project, it will enable the selection of one route over another or the imposition of mitigation measures by the agency. However, if a comprehensive analysis is required, it falls beyond the scope of the agency's responsibility.

""The fossil fuel industry and its allies are making radical arguments that would blind the public to obvious health consequences of government decisions. The court should stick with settled law instead. If it doesn’t, communities will pay the price," Sam Sankar, Earthjustice vice president of programs, stated."

On Dec. 4, Justice Neil Gorsuch withdrew from the case before the arguments.