Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County, Colorado | |
---|---|
Full case name | Seven County Infrastructure Coalition, et al., Petitioners v. Eagle County, Colorado, et al. |
Docket no. | 23-975 |
Questions presented | |
Whether NEPA requires agencies to study the indirect environmental impact of the actions they regulate. |
Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County, Colorado (Docket 23-975) is a pending United States Supreme Court case about the scope of environmental review required for government agencies by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
Proposed as a way to transport oil to ports and refineries, the Uinta Basin Rail project was approved to begin construction by the Surface Transportation Board in 2021. This approval was challenged in court, and was tossed out in August 2023 by the District of Columbia Circuit which found that the environmental review done overlooked impacts on wildlife, possible environmental damage from oil spills and other types of accidents, and the local impact of increased crude oil refining.
The Seven County Infrastructure Coalition appealed the DC Circuit's ruling to the Supreme Court, arguing that the things the Surface Transportation Board failed to include in their environmental review are not within the agency's regulatory authority. United States Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar recommended that the court deny certiorari, but it was granted in June 2024. [1]
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) is an independent agency of the United States government that regulates the interstate transmission and wholesale sale of electricity and natural gas and regulates the prices of interstate transport of petroleum by pipeline. FERC also reviews proposals to build interstate natural gas pipelines, natural gas storage projects, and liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminals, in addition to licensing non-federal hydropower projects.
The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) is a United States environmental law designed to promote the enhancement of the environment. It created new laws requiring U.S. federal government agencies to evaluate the environmental impacts of their actions and decisions, and it established the President's Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). The Act was passed by the U.S. Congress in December 1969 and signed into law by President Richard Nixon on January 1, 1970. To date, more than 100 nations around the world have enacted national environmental policies modeled after NEPA.
An environmental impact statement (EIS), under United States environmental law, is a document required by the 1969 National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) for certain actions "significantly affecting the quality of the human environment". An EIS is a tool for decision making. It describes the positive and negative environmental effects of a proposed action, and it usually also lists one or more alternative actions that may be chosen instead of the action described in the EIS. One of the primary authors of the act is Lynton K. Caldwell.
Department of Transportation v. Public Citizen, 541 U.S. 752 (2004), is a case argued in the Supreme Court of the United States on 21 April 2004. The question the case presented relates to Presidential foreign affairs and foreign trade actions exempt from environmental-review requirements under the National Environmental Policy Act and the Clean Air Act. Specifically, the question is whether those actions are subject to those requirements as a result of a rulemaking action concerning motor carrier safety by the federal agency with responsibility for that type of safety.
The Office of Economics, Environmental Analysis, and Administration (OEEAA) is a part of the Surface Transportation Board of the United States Department of Transportation, a United States government agency. It does work related to railroads.
The California Environmental Quality Act is a California statute passed in 1970 and signed in to law by then-governor Ronald Reagan, shortly after the United States federal government passed the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), to institute a statewide policy of environmental protection. CEQA does not directly regulate land uses, but instead requires state and local agencies within California to follow a protocol of analysis and public disclosure of environmental impacts of proposed projects and, in a departure from NEPA, adopt all feasible measures to mitigate those impacts. CEQA makes environmental protection a mandatory part of every California state and local (public) agency's decision making process.
United States environmental law concerns legal standards to protect human health and improve the natural environment of the United States. While subject to criticism at home and abroad on issues of protection, enforcement, and over-regulation, the country remains an important source of environmental legal expertise and experience.
Environmental Impact assessment (EIA) is the assessment of the environmental consequences of a plan, policy, program, or actual projects prior to the decision to move forward with the proposed action. In this context, the term "environmental impact assessment" is usually used when applied to actual projects by individuals or companies and the term "strategic environmental assessment" (SEA) applies to policies, plans and programmes most often proposed by organs of state. It is a tool of environmental management forming a part of project approval and decision-making. Environmental assessments may be governed by rules of administrative procedure regarding public participation and documentation of decision making, and may be subject to judicial review.
Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users or SAFETEA-LU was a funding and authorization bill that governed United States federal surface transportation spending. It was signed into law by President George W. Bush on August 10, 2005, as Pub. L.Tooltip Public Law 109–59 (text)(PDF) and 119 Stat. 1144.
Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984), was a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court that set forth the legal test used when U.S. federal courts must defer to a government agency's interpretation of a law or statute. The decision articulated a doctrine known as "Chevron deference". Chevron deference consisted of a two-part test that was deferential to government agencies: first, whether Congress has spoken directly to the precise issue at question, and second, "whether the agency's answer is based on a permissible construction of the statute".
United States v. Students Challenging Regulatory Agency Procedures (SCRAP), 412 U.S. 669 (1973), was a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court in which the Court held that the members of SCRAP—five law students from the George Washington University Law School—had standing to sue under Article III of the Constitution to challenge a nationwide railroad freight rate increase approved by the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC). SCRAP was the first full-court consideration of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The Court also reversed the lower court decision that an injunction should be issued at the suspension stage of the ICC rate proceeding. The standing decision has retained its place as the high mark in the Court's standing jurisprudence.
Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 555 U.S. 7 (2008), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court concerning whether federal law restricted the United States Navy's ability to use sonar during drills given the possibility of a harmful effect on marine mammals such as whales.
Monsanto Co. v. Geertson Seed Farms, 561 U.S. 139 (2010), is a United States Supreme Court case decided 7-1 in favor of Monsanto. The decision allowed Monsanto to sell genetically modified alfalfa seeds to farmers, and allowed farmers to plant them, grow crops, harvest them, and sell the crop into the food supply. The case came about because the use of the seeds was approved by regulatory authorities; the approval was challenged in district court by Geertson Seed Farms and other groups who were concerned that the genetically modified alfalfa would spread too easily, and the challengers won. Monsanto appealed the district court decision and lost, and appealed again to the Supreme Court, where Monsanto won, thus upholding the original approval and allowing the seeds to be sold.
Baltimore Gas & Electric Co. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 462 U.S. 87 (1983), is a United States Supreme Court decision that held valid a Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) rule that during the licensing of nuclear power plants, the permanent storage of nuclear waste should be assumed to have no environmental impact.
Texas Central or Texas Central Partners, LLC, is a private company that is proposing to build a high-speed rail line between Dallas/Fort Worth and Houston. It plans to use technology based on that used by the Central Japan Railway Company and trains based on the N700S Series Shinkansen. The company has indicated that the journey time would be less than 90 minutes, with service beginning as early as 2026.
Rosemont Copper is a proposed large open pit copper mine project by the Canadian mining corporation Hudbay Minerals. The project site is located within the Santa Rita Mountains and Coronado National Forest, in Pima County of southern Arizona. It has undergone a permitting review process under the direction of the United States Forest Service and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and has been delayed by legal judgements and suspension of its operating permit by the US Army Corps of Engineers.
The Uinta Basin Rail project is a proposed 100-mile (160 km) rail line to connect the shale oil rich Uinta Basin region of eastern Utah to the national rail network. Numerous proposals have been made, some as far back as 1902, that are still under consideration. The current effort is a public-private partnership between a coalition of 7 counties in Utah, the Rio Grande Pacific Corporation and Drexel Hamilton Infrastructure Partners. The railroad is also backed by the Ute Tribe who hold a 5% stake in the project. If the rail line is built it will be the first major greenfield rail line built in the United States since the Chicago and North Western’s line to the Powder River Basin was built in the early 1980s. The Surface Transportation Board approved construction of the line in December 2021, however, the approval is being challenged in court by various environmentalist groups. In 2024, the Supreme Court of the United States agreed to hear the case Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County, involving the approval to build the rail line.
Calvert Cliffs' Coordinating Committee, Inc. v. United States Atomic Energy Commission is a 1971 United States court decision which provided the first important court interpretation of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
Climate change litigation, also known as climate litigation, is an emerging body of environmental law using legal practice to set case law precedent to further climate change mitigation efforts from public institutions, such as governments and companies. In the face of slow climate change politics delaying climate change mitigation, activists and lawyers have increased efforts to use national and international judiciary systems to advance the effort. Climate litigation typically engages in one of five types of legal claims: Constitutional law, administrative law, private law (challenging corporations or other organizations for negligence, nuisance, etc., fraud or consumer protection, or human rights.
Coalition for TJ v. Fairfax County School Board is a United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit case about the changes to Thomas Jefferson High School for Science and Technology's admissions policy which were made in 2020. The Coalition for TJ, a local single-issue advocacy group, alleged that the changes that Fairfax County Public Schools made to the school's admission policy unfairly discriminate against Asian Americans. After the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia ruled in favor of the Coalition for TJ in February 2022, FCPS appealed the ruling to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, which reversed the district court in May 2023.