Supreme Court wrestles with how far NEPA review must reach in 88‑mile rail case

The Supreme Court heard arguments over how far agencies must look under the National Environmental Policy Act when approving large infrastructure projects, with counsel for the petitioner urging a narrow, project‑focused test and the government and respondent pressing for a broader foreseeability standard.

Mister Clement, counsel for the petitioner, told the court that “NEPA is a self described procedural statute. It is designed to inform government decision making, not paralyze it.” He argued the decision below improperly required the agency to study downstream refinery impacts and accidents hundreds or thousands of miles away despite a 3,600‑page environmental impact statement with 20 appendices.

The petitioner framed a two‑part test: when an environmental effect is both remote in time and space and falls within the jurisdiction of another agency, the approving agency should not be considered the legally relevant cause for that effect and therefore should not be reversed for failing to study it in depth. Clement highlighted the record…