Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County
View Official PDFBelow are plain-language sections to help you understand what the Court decided in Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County and why it matters. Quotes are taken from the syllabus (the Court’s short summary at the start of the opinion).
Summary
A short, plain-English overview of Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County.
The Supreme Court reviewed a decision by the D.C. Circuit regarding the approval of an 88-mile railroad line by the U.S. Surface Transportation Board. The Board's environmental impact statement (EIS) was challenged for not fully analyzing the effects of upstream and downstream oil projects. The D.C. Circuit found NEPA violations and vacated the Board's approval. The Supreme Court reversed this decision, emphasizing judicial deference to agency determinations under NEPA.
Holding
The single most important “bottom line” of what the Court decided in Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County.
The Court held that the D.C. Circuit failed to provide the necessary judicial deference to the Surface Transportation Board's decisions under NEPA, particularly regarding the scope of environmental effects considered in the EIS.
Constitutional Concepts
These are the Constitution-related themes that appear in Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County. Click a concept to see other cases that involve the same idea.
-
Why Federalism is relevant to Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County
The case involves the division of power between federal agencies and state entities regarding environmental review and infrastructure projects.
Syllabus excerpt (verbatim)The D. C. Circuit failed to afford the Board the substantial judicial deference required in NEPA cases and incorrectly interpreted 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.
Key Quotes
Short excerpts from the syllabus in Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County that support the summary and concepts above.
The D.C. Circuit failed to afford the Board the substantial judicial deference required in NEPA cases.
NEPA ensures that agencies and the public are aware of the environmental consequences of certain proposed infrastructure projects.
Judicial deference in NEPA cases extends to an agency's determination of what details are relevant in an EIS.