SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
national environmental policy act
'Devastating Loss for Our Wild Places': Supreme Court Attacks Bedrock Environmental Law
"The Trump administration will treat this decision as an invitation to ignore environmental concerns as it tries to promote fossil fuels, kill off renewable energy, and destroy sensible pollution regulations."
May 29, 2025
In a 8-0 ruling on Thursday, the U.S. Supreme Court not only reversed a block on a proposed oil train in Utah but also narrowed a landmark federal environmental law, sparking intense alarm about what the ruling will mean for communities and all living things across the country.
"Today's decision undermines decades of legal precedent that told federal agencies to look before they leap when approving projects that could harm communities and the environment," said Earthjustice senior vice president of program Sam Sankar in a statement. "The Trump administration will treat this decision as an invitation to ignore environmental concerns as it tries to promote fossil fuels, kill off renewable energy, and destroy sensible pollution regulations."
Since the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) was signed into law in 1970 by Republican then-President Richard Nixon, it has become a key target for GOP policymakers aligned with the planet-wrecking fossil fuel industry, including President Donald Trump, who swiftly took aim at the law after returning to office in January.
"We urgently need to strengthen laws like NEPA, not weaken or narrow them, so that we can prioritize the health of people over polluters and corporate greed."
NEPA requires federal agencies to prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) for certain infrastructure projects. In 2023, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit tossed both an EIS for the proposed Uinta Basin Railway and the U. S. Surface Transportation Board's approval of the project, which would connect Utah's oil fields to the national rail network.
After hearing arguments for Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County in December, the nation's highest court reversed that decision on Thursday, continuing a trend of rulings slammed by environmentalists as gifts to corporate polluters.
Conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch recused himself without explanation. Politiconoted that "it followed a public pressure campaign from environmental groups and Democrats who argued his close connections to the owner of oil and gas producer Anschutz—which filed a brief in the case saying NEPA's scope was critical to developing oil and gas reserves—disqualified him."
Justice Brett Kavanagh delivered the opinion, joined by the other right-wingers who participated in the case. Justice Sonia Sotomayor filed a concurring opinion, joined by the other two liberals.
Kavanaugh wrote for the majority that "the D. C. Circuit failed to afford the board the substantial judicial deference required in NEPA cases and incorrectly interpreted NEPA to require the board to consider the environmental effects of upstream and downstream projects that are separate in time or place from the Uinta Basin Railway."
Sotomayor, joined by Kagan and Jackson, refuses to join Kavanaugh's majority opinion, saying it "unnecessarily" grounds its analysis "largely in matters of policy." (It's clear that Kavanaugh wants to weaken NEPA's restrictions on energy permitting.) www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24p...
[image or embed]
— Mark Joseph Stern (@mjsdc.bsky.social) May 29, 2025 at 10:09 AM
Environmental and public health advocates were quick to warn of the impacts of not only this 88-mile rail project, if completed, but also the decision more broadly.
"This decision is terrible news for the entire Colorado River Basin," said John Weisheit, conservation director at Living Rivers. "To avoid the pending collapse of the Colorado River, we have to immediately reduce water consumption by 25% and cut carbon emissions by 50% by the end of this decade. Our federal decision-makers must deny any project that counters these objectives. The Uinta Basin Railway unquestionably falls into that category and should never see the light of day."
Critics of the ruling are worried about increased oil extraction in Utah as well as additional refining in Gulf of Mexico communities.
"Regrettably, the Supreme Court has scored one for the oil companies who don't want you to look too closely at the harm their product will do to Black and Brown communities in Cancer Alley," said Sierra Club senior attorney Nathaniel Shoaff. "Our bedrock environmental laws, like NEPA, are meant to ensure people are protected from corporate polluters."
"Fossil fuel infrastructure projects do not exist in a vacuum and have far-reaching impacts on communities, especially those on the frontlines of climate change or those who face serious health harms from increased pollution," Shoaff stressed.
"The last thing we need is another climate bomb on wheels that the communities along its proposed route say they don't want."
Center for Biological Diversity senior attorney Wendy Park declared that "the last thing we need is another climate bomb on wheels that the communities along its proposed route say they don't want," and vowed to "keep fighting to make sure this railway is never built."
Park also looked beyond the train project, warning that "this disastrous decision to undermine our nation's bedrock environmental law means our air and water will be more polluted, the climate and extinction crises will intensify, and people will be less healthy."
WildEarth Guardians staff attorney Katherine Merlin similarly emphasized that "today's decision is a devastating loss for our wild places, our wild rivers, and for all of the human and nonhuman communities that depend on a clean environment and stable climate."
The ruling comes as the Trump administration and congressional Republicans are working to boost planet-heating fossil fuels, ignoring scientists' warnings about the worsening climate emergency.
"After the hottest year on record, when the U.S. should be improving environmental safeguards and empowering frontline communities, this decision is a giant step backwards," said Ashfaq Khalfan, Oxfam America's director of climate justice. "Everyone deserves to live and work in communities with clean air and safe drinking water. We urgently need to strengthen laws like NEPA, not weaken or narrow them, so that we can prioritize the health of people over polluters and corporate greed."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump Moves to Fast-Track 100+ Dirty Fossil Fuel Permits Under 'Fake' Energy Emergency
"Trump's promise to cut Americans' energy bills is a lie," said one campaigner.
Feb 19, 2025
With more than 100 permits for oil pipeline projects and gas-fired power plants likely to be fast-tracked under U.S. President Donald Trump's so-called "energy emergency" declaration, consumer advocates on Wednesday called on lawmakers and state officials to stand up to the president's "bullying" and block his efforts to build pollution-causing fossil fuel projects—and slow clean energy progress.
"Trump's declaration of a sham energy emergency attempts to set into motion the weaponization of national security law to dismantle generations of public health and safety protections," said Tyler Slocum, director of Public Citizen's energy program. "The ultrawealthy fossil fuel executives who donated huge sums to Trump's campaign see this fraudulent emergency declaration as an opportunity to destroy the remarkable progress of wind and solar development, while maximizing fossil fuel exports and domestic consumption."
Trump signed a day-one executive order claiming that the U.S. faces an "energy emergency" and must "unleash" fossil fuel production—which has already been on the rise in recent years despite clear warnings from scientists that oil, gas, and coal extraction must end in order to avoid catastrophic planetary hearing.
"Trump's national energy emergency is a sham."
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers cited that order in recent days when it created a new "emergency" designation for infrastructure project permits, paving the way for officials to push forward nearly 700 pending applications, including more than 100 for fossil fuel projects.
Clean Water Action toldThe New York Times that one major project it has fought against, Canadian firm Enbridge's Line 5 pipeline, which the company wants to build under the Mackinac Straits, could threaten the Great Lakes and tens of millions of people who rely on them for drinking water.
"If this is pushed through on an emergency permit, the implications of an oil spill if there's an explosion or something during tunnel construction is that over 700 miles of Great Lakes shoreline could be at risk," Sean McBrearty, Michigan policy director for Clean Water Action, told the Times.
"If approved, this project will risk our fresh water and the millions of people who rely on it for drinking, jobs, and tourism in exchange for a foreign oil company's profits," added McBrearty.
On Wednesday, U.S. Sens. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) and Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.)—who earlier this month introduced a resolution challenging Trump's emergency declaration—held a Capitol Hill press conference with environmental leaders.
"We are producing more energy now than at any other point in our history, and the U.S. is the envy of the world when it comes to energy innovation and production," Kaine said at the event. "The passage of the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and Inflation Reduction Act have accelerated clean energy projects and created jobs, and we are on an amazing trajectory."
"Trump's sham emergency threatens to screw all of that up," Kaine added. "Why? Because he'd rather benefit Big Oil and suspend environmental protections than lower costs and create jobs for the American people. I hope my colleagues will join me in voting to terminate President Trump's emergency."
Heinrich said: "Trump's fake emergency declaration is causing enormous uncertainty. If you're thinking about opening a new factory, you don't know what your tax structure will be in the next 12 months. If you're trying to site and build a new transmission line, the federal agencies you work with just had a ton of their expert staff sacked, making it more difficult to get a permit."
"This is going to kill skilled trades jobs and drive up the cost of your electricity bills by as much at $480 a year by 2030," the senator added. "Trump's war on affordable, American-made energy is killing jobs and raising costs on working families."
Slocum urged senators to back Kaine and Heinrich's resolution.
"Trump's promise to cut Americans' energy bills is a lie, as every action under the fraudulent energy emergency would subject Americans to higher energy burdens," he said on Wednesday. "Having senators support Senate Joint Resolution 10 is a first step, but every governor of states in the Northeast and West Coast targeted by Trump's phony emergency order needs to stand up to his bullying."
The headline of this article has been changed to reflect that President Donald Trump's executive order moved to expedite the permit approval process rather than fast-tracking projects.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Significant Victory': Court Rules Planned Plutonium Pits for New Nukes Violate US Law
"Public scrutiny is especially important because the activities at issue here, by their very nature, result in the production of dangerous weapons and extensive amounts of toxic and radioactive waste," a plaintiffs' lawyer said.
Oct 03, 2024
In what advocates called a major win for frontline communities and the rule of law, a U.S. district court judge ruled on Monday that the federal government could not move forward with producing plutonium pits—"the heart and trigger of a nuclear bomb"—at two proposed sites in New Mexico and South Carolina.
Instead, Judge Mary Geiger Lewis agreed with a coalition of nonprofit community groups that the Department of Energy (DOE) and the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) violated the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) by failing to fully consider alternatives to producing the pits at New Mexico's Los Alamos National Laboratory and South Carolina's Savannah River Site (SRS). Now, the federal government must conduct a full environmental impact statement of how pit production would work at sites across the U.S.
"This is a significant victory that will ensure NEPA's goal of public participation is satisfied," attorney for the plaintiffs Ben Cunningham, of the South Carolina Environmental Law Project, said in a statement. "Public scrutiny is especially important because the activities at issue here, by their very nature, result in the production of dangerous weapons and extensive amounts of toxic and radioactive waste. I hope the public will seize the upcoming opportunity to review and comment on the federal agencies' assessment."
"This is a victory for public transparency, and hopefully will result in alternative proposals that are more protective of the environment and affected communities around these sites."
Making plutonium pits means working with "extremely hazardous and radioactive materials," Nuclear Watch New Mexico, one of the groups behind the suit, pointed out. As of 2018, the government had planned to produce at least 80 pits a year by 2030—30 or more in New Mexico and 50 or more in South Carolina.
Yet these pits are not intended to maintain the United States' existing nuclear weapons stockpile. Instead, they would be for future, experimental weapons that could not even be tested without violating the Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty. What's more, making the pits would cost U.S. taxpayers over $60 billion over the next three decades, and the Government Accountability Office (GAO) found that the NNSA has not made reliable cost estimates for production at the two proposed sites.
"The DOE and NNSA have been on the GAO's 'High Risk List' for project mismanagement and cost overruns for more than 30 years," said Jay Coghlan, the executive director of Nuclear Watch New Mexico. "Nevertheless, these agencies think they can proceed with their most expensive and complex project ever without required public analyses and credible cost estimates."
Coghlan continued: "Public scrutiny and formal comment under the National Environmental Policy Act have proven time and again to improve public safety and save taxpayers' money. A nationwide programmatic environmental impact statement [PEIS] on expanded plutonium pit production will hold DOE and NNSA accountable for just that."
It will also give local communities a chance to have a say in potentially dangerous projects being implemented near their homes. The plaintiffs were composed mostly of frontline groups: Savannah River Site Watch, Nuclear Watch New Mexico, Tri-Valley Communities Against a Radioactive Environment (CAREs), and the Gullah/Geechee Sea Island Coalition.
"Native Gullah/Geechees, including the Gullah/Geechee Fishing Association and Gullah/Geechee Sea Island Coalition members, rely on safe and healthy water in order to sustain ourselves and our community," said Gullah Geechee Nation Chieftess Queen Quet. "Therefore, it is critical that the public is fully aware of any and all potential negative impacts that projects will have on critical resources such as our water supplies and water bodies."
If the DOE and NNSA's plans had gone ahead, it would have been the first time that plutonium pits were manufactured at the Savannah River Site, at a facility which could cost between $11 and $25 billion to complete. However, Judge Lewis concluded that the agencies had not updated their plans to account for production at two sites at once and must therefore conduct a PEIS considering production at potential sites across the U.S. as well as the handling and disposal of waste.
"In our comments, it was repeatedly stressed that the agency violated the law by failing to take a hard look at alternatives for this 'two-site' plan," said Scott Yundt, executive director of the Livermore, California-based Tri-Valley CAREs. "Additionally, commenters pointed out the lack of inclusion in the environmental review of the other affected sites involved in the plan, chief among them Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant, where the scope of work and the corresponding impacts was largely left out of the analysis and, again, no alternatives were offered or analyzed as required by NEPA. The judge saw these violations clearly and ordered agencies do the analysis that should have been done at the outset. This is a victory for public transparency, and hopefully will result in alternative proposals that are more protective of the environment and affected communities around these sites."
Tom Clements, who directs Savannah River Site Watch and was also an individual plaintiff in the case, said the ruling was "a notable victory for the main argument in our lawsuit—that the NNSA's NEPA analysis on plutonium pit production was inadequate."
In addition, it provides a reprieve for the project's concerned neighbors.
"The design and construction work on the proposed SRS pit plant should be put on hold until the PEIS has been finalized," Clements said.
Dylan Spaulding, senior scientist at the Union of Concerned Scientists, also applauded the ruling.
"NNSA skirted the rules and now they are being held accountable—this is a victory for transparency," he said.
Spaulding added that he was unsure whether or not this would delay the planned plutonium pit production blitz.
"There are still a lot of environmental hazards and questions that need to be addressed," he said. "We should be pausing and thinking about that before this hugely expensive project goes forward."
This piece has been updated to included comments from Dylan Spaulding of the Union of Concerned Scientists.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular