Environmental Protection

States, Members of Congress, Former Agency & CEQ Officials, Legal Experts, Local Communities File Amicus Briefs in Defense of NEPA in Supreme Court Oil Train Case

Amici from broad and varied interests will help Supreme Court understand the legal and practical consequences of undoing lower court ruling

 —

Numerous groups filed amicus briefs before the U.S. Supreme Court in support of environmental and public health groups in Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County, which concerns the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).

The amici include:

  • A group of states led by Colorado
  • Former high-ranking officials of federal agencies that make, build, and implement federal projects
  • The Howard Law School Civil Rights Clinic, discussing how NEPA gives groups like environmental justice and tribal communities a voice in federal planning
  • Legal scholars from the Institute for Policy Integrity at New York University Law School
  • Members of Congress, led by Representative Raúl Grijalva and Senator Ed Markey, who have and will continue to exercise their constitutional authority to shape NEPA as needed to respond to policy debates
  • Local Colorado communities that would face harm from Uinta Basin waxy crude trains as they traverse the Rocky Mountains on the way to the Gulf. Among these groups is the Northwest Colorado Council of Governments, an association representing local governments from across the political spectrum
  • Former White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) officials including those who have worked for five Republican and two Democratic Presidents. They argue that the Railway’s interpretation of NEPA conflicts with the understanding they developed of the law based on their long experience with it.
  • The Constitutional Accountability Center, addressing the value of adhering to longstanding understandings of federal statutes as the Court itself has emphasized

The amici represent broad and varied interests that will help the Supreme Court understand the legal and practical consequences of undoing the ruling below, which required the Surface Transportation Board to consider important environmental effects before approving an 88-mile railway that would transport waxy crude oil from the Uinta Basin in northeastern Utah through the Colorado Rockies to Gulf Coast refineries. The case considers the scope of NEPA.

This month, environmental and public health groups filed a brief with the Supreme Court. The Court will hear arguments on the case on Tuesday, Dec. 10.

More from Environmental Protection

Environmental Protection
U.S. Supreme Court

Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County

In Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County, the Supreme Court is considering whether the National Environmental Policy Act requires federal agencies to study all the reasonably foreseeable environmental effects of proposed projects before approving...
Environmental Protection
May 25, 2023

RELEASE: Court Rewrites Clean Water Act to Protect Private Land Development at the Expense of…Clean Water

WASHINGTON, DC – Following the Supreme Court’s announcement of its decision in Sackett v. EPA,...
By: Miriam Becker-Cohen
Environmental Protection
January 19, 2023

BLOG: Defending the Environment with Constitutional and Statutory Text and History

This Term, the Supreme Court is considering Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency, an important environmental...
By: Joie Mills
Environmental Protection
June 30, 2022

U.S. Supreme Court just gave federal agencies a big reason to worry

Reuters
(Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision on Thursday to block the Environmental Protection Agency from regulating greenhouse gas...
By: Brian R. Frazelle, By Alison Frankel
Environmental Protection
June 30, 2022

RELEASE: Supreme Court’s Conservatives Deal Crushing Blow to Ability of Government to Protect the Environment

“Because of this flawed, ideologically tainted ruling, the power of the national government to solve...
By: Elizabeth B. Wydra
Environmental Protection
U.S. Supreme Court

Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency

In Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency, the Supreme Court determined the proper test for ascertaining whether wetlands are “navigable waters” under the Clean Water Act.