By: Steven M. Taber, Esq.
In Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County, Colorado (May 29, 2025), the U.S. Supreme Court held that the Surface Transportation Board (STB) complied with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) when it declined to evaluate environmental impacts from increased oil drilling and refining that could result from a newly approved railway in Utah. The Court reversed the D.C. Circuit, which had vacated the agency’s Environmental Impact Statement for failing to address these “reasonably foreseeable” indirect effects.
This case comes just months after the Court’s landmark ruling in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, which eliminated the Chevron doctrine. While Loper Bright reduces judicial deference to agency interpretations of law, Seven County reinforces strong deference to agency factual and technical judgments under NEPA. For environmental practitioners, this new boundary line will shape litigation strategies going forward.
Court Holds NEPA Review Does Not Extend to Separate Projects
The Uinta Basin Railway—a proposed 88-mile rail line connecting oil fields in Utah to the national freight network—was approved by the STB in 2021 after issuance of a 3,600-page EIS. The Board evaluated a wide range of direct environmental impacts from the rail line’s construction and operation, but declined to fully analyze the effects of increased oil production and refining in other states, which would be conducted by third parties.
The D.C. Circuit found this inadequate, ruling that these upstream and downstream effects were foreseeable and must be analyzed under NEPA. The Supreme Court disagreed. Justice Kavanaugh, writing for the majority, emphasized that NEPA requires agencies to analyze the environmental effects of the “proposed action”—in this case, the railway—not of separate, future, or geographically distinct projects. The Court reasoned that requiring analysis of such effects would stretch NEPA beyond its procedural scope and impose burdens beyond an agency’s jurisdiction.
Judicial Review After Loper Bright: Law vs. Fact
This decision marks a post-Loper Bright inflection point in administrative law. In Loper Bright, the Court held that courts must independently interpret statutes without deferring to agency readings. That decision invites more aggressive judicial review on questions of agency authority.
But in Seven County, the Court made clear that deference remains intact when reviewing an agency’s fact-intensive environmental analysis under NEPA. Agencies have broad discretion to decide how much detail to include in an NEPA document and where to draw the line on evaluating indirect effects. Courts, the majority held, should not “micromanage” such technical judgments so long as they are reasonable.
The result is a clearer divide: courts will more actively police agencies’ interpretations of law post-Loper Bright, but must stay hands-off when reviewing the scope and adequacy of environmental review under NEPA.
Concurring Justices Urge a Narrower Rationale
Justice Sotomayor, joined by Justices Kagan and Jackson, concurred in the judgment but criticized the majority’s sweeping language. She agreed the STB had no obligation to analyze the effects of oil drilling and refining because the agency lacked statutory authority to regulate those activities. Citing Department of Transportation v. Public Citizen, she stressed that an agency need not study impacts it cannot prevent.
However, Sotomayor warned that the majority’s broader language could be used to unduly limit NEPA in future cases—particularly where agencies have broader regulatory discretion. Her concurrence signals that while this case was correctly decided, it should not be overread as a blanket restriction on environmental review.
Key Takeaways for Clients and NEPA Practitioners
- NEPA analysis is now clearly limited to the project under agency review. Agencies are not required to evaluate environmental effects of upstream or downstream activities beyond their jurisdiction—even if those effects are foreseeable.
- Post-Loper Bright, the scope of NEPA litigation is narrowing. Legal challenges to agency authority may now be more viable, but challenges to how an agency scopes or structures its NEPA documents face a higher bar.
- Project proponents benefit from a clarified regulatory framework. Provided agencies justify their boundaries and follow NEPA procedures, courts are likely to uphold environmental reviews without requiring exhaustive indirect impact analysis.
Next Steps
For developers, agencies, and litigants navigating NEPA, Seven County provides a roadmap for defending NEPA documents post-Loper Bright. Legal teams should evaluate current and future litigation strategies in light of this evolving standard of review.