Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Supreme Court Review topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Legislative counsel summarizes Supreme Court rulings affecting NEPA and Clean Air Act venue
Summary
Office of Legislative Research counsel reviewed three Supreme Court decisions for the committee: the decision upholding an STB environmental review narrowly, and rulings clarifying venue for Clean Air Act challenges depending on whether EPA actions are nationally applicable.
Ryan Williams of the Office of Legislative Research and General Counsel briefed the committee on three Supreme Court decisions concluding in June that the committee—s staff said could affect committee subjects.
Williams summarized 7 County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County, a unanimous opinion that narrowed the scope of judicial review under the National Environmental Policy Act. The Supreme Court rejected an expansive approach and directed courts to review environmental impacts that are ``similar in time and place to the project,'' a standard Williams said limited the permissible geographic and temporal reach of NEPA analysis. That decision reinstated the Surface Transportation Board's approval of an 88-mile rail line project for the Uinta Basin; Williams noted further reviews (including endangered-species analysis) remained to be completed by agencies and project proponents.
Williams also summarized two Clean Air Act venue rulings — Oklahoma v. EPA and EPA v. Calumet Refining — that addressed which federal court receives challenges to EPA national actions. The high court said that challenges to EPA actions that are nationally applicable should be brought to the D.C. Circuit, whereas locally or regionally applicable matters may proceed in regional circuits; a majority added a requirement that courts assess whether an EPA action has nationwide scope or effect. Williams said the practical result for Utah was that the state—s challenge to EPA action over state-implementation-plan rejections will be heard in the Tenth Circuit rather than the D.C. Circuit.
Committee members had no substantive questions about the term review at the hearing; staff said they would provide detailed memos to members on request.
