In the latest episode of the Bracewell Environmental Law Monitor, Ann Navaro joins hosts Daniel Pope and Taylor Stuart to discuss the implications of the Supreme Court’s ruling in Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County. They delve into the ruling’s clarifications on judicial deference and an agency’s obligations under NEPA. The trio also examine the potential impacts on infrastructure projects in light of this decision.

Episode Highlights

[01:44] The Evolution of NEPA Regulations: Daniel outlines key changes to NEPA regulation during the Trump and Biden administrations, including significant judicial trends. 

[05:40] Case Background: Taylor summarizes the 88-mile railroad project at the center of the case and the core legal questions about NEPA’s scope. The central question was whether the Surface Transportation Board was required to consider downstream impacts of the project in its environmental review.

[08:22] Highlights From the Case: Ann, Daniel and Taylor discuss the Court’s focus on judicial deference, agency discretion and clarified limits to NEPA’s procedural scope. They talk through the various layers of the Court’s decision and explain how and why this decision is significant and momentous for NEPA.

[21:29] The Court Rulings Is a Reset for NEPA: As the Supreme Court attempts to provide additional clarity around NEPA, Ann believes the Court’s decision offers a reset for NEPA, ultimately reverting it back to its original intention.

[28:46] The Relevancy of Connected Actions: Ann and Taylor discuss how review of interrelated/connected actions will continue in light of the Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County decision. Ann explains that the Supreme Court has emphasized that interrelated actions are actions pending in front of the same agency.

[38:22] Closing Thoughts on NEPA’s Future: Taylor concludes with final thoughts and questions on the SCOTUS decision, including whether it will reduce litigation and delays.