10 votes

US Supreme Court narrows scope of National Environmental Policy Act review

Posted by skybrian
Tags: usa, politics.usa, republican party, donald trump, policy.environment, courts.supreme, supreme court of the united states, national environmental policy act, law, regulation, author.jonathan h adler, source.reason
https://reason.com/volokh/2025/05/29/supreme-court-narrows-scope-of-nepa-review/

Link information

This data is scraped automatically and may be incorrect.

Authors
Jonathan H. Adler, Lenore Skenazy, Liz Wolfe, C.J. Ciaramella, Charles Oliver, Veronique de Rugy
Published
May 29 2025
Word count
1016 words

3 comments

  1. [3]
    skybrian
    Link
    From the article:

    From the article:

    At first read, the biggest significance of this opinion is that it clarifies that NEPA does not require Environmental Impact Statements to consider upstream and downstream effects of projects that are caused by third-parties. This is particularly significant for infrastructure projects, such as pipelines or transmission lines, and should help reduce NEPA's burdens (at least at the margins). The opinion will also likely hamper any future efforts, perhaps by Democratic administrations, to expand or restore more fulsome (and burdensome) NEPA requirements.

    4 votes
    1. [2]
      Jordan117
      Link Parent
      No consideration given to the "burdens" imposed on people by those upstream and downstream effects, of course.

      No consideration given to the "burdens" imposed on people by those upstream and downstream effects, of course.

      8 votes
      1. skybrian
        Link Parent
        NEPA doesn’t require a government agency to do anything in particular, just document that they fully considered environmental effects. It adds years of delay to projects and makes them more...

        NEPA doesn’t require a government agency to do anything in particular, just document that they fully considered environmental effects. It adds years of delay to projects and makes them more expensive. That’s true of all infrastructure projects, good and bad.

        So, if you want to see more use of alternative energy, which will require building more power lines, this ruling seems like a good thing? It also enables more fossil fuel projects, though.

        5 votes