US Supreme Court deals blows to EPA, environmental protections

In a series recent rulings, the U.S. Supreme Court has dealt a blow to environmental interests. This includes limiting the authority of Environmental Protection Agency and relaxing environmental impact study requirements for proposed projects. While the Supreme Court's nine-month term was dominated by cases concerning President Donald Trump’s immigration policies and other issues, it also continued its long-standing trend of reducing federal protections for environmental in several rulings which could be a boon to businesses.

Wendy Park, a lawyer for the Center for Biological Diversity, an environmentalist group, stated that these rulings "dealt enormous blows to the public health and safety and the environment."

Park continued, "We will all suffer from unhealthy air, less clean water and climate warming." Park's group lost the biggest environmental case of the last decade, involving a proposed Utah railroad intended to transport crude oils. The conservative Justice Brett Kavanaugh authored the 8-0 decision, which allowed federal agencies to scale back their environmental review of projects that they regulate. This boosted the project.

The decision narrowed federal agency's environmental obligations under the 1970 federal law, the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), passed by Congress in an effort to prevent environmental harms from large projects.

Daniel Farber, University of California Berkeley law professor, said that the NEPA case could be the most dangerous to a major change of the law, depending on how lower courts interpret the ruling.

Farber said that "the other decisions continue the process of eroding federal protection of environment." The big concern is the fact that this adds to a trend in favor of environmental protection at the Supreme Court.

Seven Utah counties, along with an infrastructure investment group, have proposed to build an 88-mile-long (142-km-long) railway in northeastern Utah. The line would connect the sparsely-populated Uinta basin region to an established freight rail network.

The National Environmental Policy Act requires that agencies evaluate the "reasonably predictable" effects of any project.

Kavanaugh wrote in his article that agencies should only take into account the environmental effects of the project under consideration and not "effects from future potential projects or geographically separated projects." Kavanaugh said that lower courts should give agencies "substantial consideration" in determining the scope of such assessments.

Park stated that "agencies approving pipelines or oil railroads now have more latitude when it comes to informing and involving communities about harms", but the court gives agencies responsible for protecting us against those harms more scrutiny.

Kavanaugh's opinion was backed by four conservative justices. The three liberal justices also weighed in on the case. Justice Neil Gorsuch was not involved in this case.

Professor James Coleman of the University of Minnesota Law School said that the ruling could be a turning-point after lower courts have been using the National Environmental Policy Act for the past 50 years to "raise higher and higher barriers to new infrastructure." Coleman said that the ruling sent a signal to lower courts to defer to agencies who exercise discretion granted by Congress.

Coleman stated that the court had demanded "a course correction" from lower courts. The court emphasized how courts' refusal to defer to agencies' environmental reviews is holding up important infrastructure projects.

Coleman said that it remains to be determined whether lower courts will accept the course correction.

REINING IN EPA

In recent years, the Supreme Court has, with its conservative majority of 6-3, taken a sceptical view towards the broad powers granted to federal regulatory agencies. It has also restricted the power of the EPA.

It blocked the EPA’s “Good Neighbor” rule in 2024. The rule was designed to reduce ozone emission that could worsen air quality in neighboring states. In 2023 it weakened the EPA's ability to protect wetlands, and combat water pollution. In 2022 it imposed limitations on the EPA’s authority to reduce carbon emissions from coal and gas fired power plants under the Clean Air Act. In March, the court again confined the EPA in a case involving a permit issued by the EPA for a wastewater-treatment facility owned and operated by the City of San Francisco. The facility empties into Pacific Ocean. The city sued the EPA to contest certain restrictions included in the permit.

The ruling by conservative Justice Samuel Alito was 5-4. It found that the EPA exceeded its authority in accordance with the Clean Water Act, an anti-pollution legislation, by imposing too vague requirements to permit holders relating to the water quality standards of the receiving body. The three liberal justices and conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett dissented.

Howard University School of Law Professor Carlton Waterhouse stated that the ruling stripped the EPA of a commonly used mechanism to restrict the discharge of contaminants into federally regulated water at the level required for such waters meet their designated uses.

Waterhouse stated that the court's decision was a setback for both the EPA and those of us who are in need of clean water. Waterhouse said that the EPA, for example, lost an important tool to ensure that the waters are clean enough to allow these activities to continue.

Waterhouse, a former EPA official under Democratic President Joe Biden, warned that some areas of the United States may experience deteriorated water quality as a result of a "workaround" to protect state water standards without a tool they've used for decades. In a ruling written by Kavanaugh, 7-2, in June, the Justices sided with the fuel producers who had opposed California's vehicle emission standards and electric cars, under a federal law on air pollution. They agreed that their legal challenge against the mandates shouldn't have been dismissed.

The court overturned the decision of a lower-court to dismiss a lawsuit filed by a Valero Energy affiliate and groups representing the fuel industry. The lower court concluded that plaintiffs lacked legal standing to challenge a Biden era EPA decision allowing California to set its own regulation.

Waterhouse stated that it was not surprising to allow these parties into the lawsuit. The court has expanded standing for business in the past.

(source: Reuters)