Sign up to save your podcasts
Or
Share Seven County Coalition v. Eagle County (23-975) 12/10/24
Share to email
Share to Facebook
Share to X
Share to email
Share to Facebook
Share to X
Or
Seven County Coalition v. Eagle County (23-975) 12/10/24
Seven County Coalition v. Eagle County
Docket Number: 23-975
Date Argued: 12/10/24
https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2024/23-975_6k47.pdf
QUESTION PRESENTED:
In Department of Transportation v. Public Citizen, 541 U.S. 752, 770 (2004), this Court
held that when an agency cannot prevent an environmental effect "due to its limited statutory
authority over the relevant actions," the National Environmental Policy Act does not require it
to study that effect. This holding has divided the courts of appeals. Five circuits read Public
Citizen to mean that an agency's environmental review can stop where its regulatory authority
stops. Two circuits disagree and require review of any impact that can be called reasonably
foreseeable.
Here, the Surface Transportation Board relied on Public Citizen to cabin its
environmental review of a new rail line in Utah. But the D.C. Circuit rejected that approach,
ruling that the Board "cannot avoid" environmental review "on the ground that it lacks
authority to prevent, control, or mitigate" distant environmental effects. As a result, it ordered
the Board to study the local effects of oil wells and refineries that lie outside the Board's
regulatory authority.
The question presented is:
Whether the National Environmental Policy Act requires an agency to study
environmental impacts beyond the proximate effects of the action over which the agency has
regulatory authority
View all episodes
By Oral ArgumentsSeven County Coalition v. Eagle County
Docket Number: 23-975
Date Argued: 12/10/24
https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2024/23-975_6k47.pdf
QUESTION PRESENTED:
In Department of Transportation v. Public Citizen, 541 U.S. 752, 770 (2004), this Court
held that when an agency cannot prevent an environmental effect "due to its limited statutory
authority over the relevant actions," the National Environmental Policy Act does not require it
to study that effect. This holding has divided the courts of appeals. Five circuits read Public
Citizen to mean that an agency's environmental review can stop where its regulatory authority
stops. Two circuits disagree and require review of any impact that can be called reasonably
foreseeable.
Here, the Surface Transportation Board relied on Public Citizen to cabin its
environmental review of a new rail line in Utah. But the D.C. Circuit rejected that approach,
ruling that the Board "cannot avoid" environmental review "on the ground that it lacks
authority to prevent, control, or mitigate" distant environmental effects. As a result, it ordered
the Board to study the local effects of oil wells and refineries that lie outside the Board's
regulatory authority.
The question presented is:
Whether the National Environmental Policy Act requires an agency to study
environmental impacts beyond the proximate effects of the action over which the agency has
regulatory authority