DENVER–The U.S. Supreme Court recently gave the go ahead to a Utah-based railroad project that will eventually haul crude oil along a stretch of the Colorado River, despite opposition from various environmental groups and local governments including Eagle County, which originally brought a lawsuit against the project as plaintiff.
The 88 mile-long Uinta Basin railroad project would connect oil-rich areas of Utah to existing track that runs through Glenwood Canyon and Colorado’s central mountains, eventually reaching refineries in the Gulf Coast states.
The Seven County Infrastructure Coalition (consisting of seven Utah counties) originally submitted its application to the U.S. Surface Transportation Board (STB) in 2020, for which an environmental impact statement (EIS) was created to meet National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requirements. This 3,600-page document addressed potential environmental impacts of the railroad and was approved in 2021.
Eagle County, along with several environmental groups, filed a lawsuit claiming the STB did not account for other impacts the project might cause such as from drilling in Utah, potential derailments into the Colorado River, or effects of refinery operations in the Gulf states. The lawsuit gained support from various environmental groups as well as other local Colorado governments including Pitkin, Routt, and Grand counties, among others.
The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed and halted construction on the railroad in 2023. The Supreme Court agreed to take the case, resulting in a unanimous (8-0, with Justice Gorsuch recusing himself) May 29 decision unwinding the appeals court ruling and putting the rail project back on track. The decision holds that the lower court failed both to afford the STB “the substantial judicial deference required in NEPA cases” as well as incorrectly interpreting 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.”
Justice Kavanaugh, delivering the opinion of the Court, writes that the STB properly addressed the potential environmental effects of the 88-mile rail construction in question, but that the board did not also need to evaluate potential impacts of projects “separate from construction and operation of the railroad line.”
“A relatively modest infrastructure project should not be turned into a scapegoat for everything that ensues from upstream oil drilling to downstream refinery emissions,” writes Kavanaugh.
The ruling sets a new, tighter standard for future NEPA litigation, which for years has been used to significantly draw out the approval process, delaying and driving up costs for a variety of new projects. Justice Kavanaugh describes the current state of NEPA as a “1970 legislative acorn” that has grown into a “judicial oak that has hindered infrastructure development ‘under the guise’ of just a little more process.”
Kavanaugh goes on to note that this has led to fewer railroads, airports, transmission lines, housing developments, highways, and more.
“NEPA has transformed from a modest procedural requirement into a blunt and haphazard tool employed by project opponents (who may not always be entirely motivated by concern for the environment) to try to stop or at least slow down new infrastructure and construction projects.”
The case is Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County.

