“The Central Principle of Judicial Review in NEPA Cases Is Deference”
Today’s Supreme court decision in Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County (which I discussed here) augurs a substantial change in how courts review agency compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). It is, as Justice Kavanaugh’s opinion for the Court explains, a “course correction” intended to “bring judicial review under NEPA back in line with the statutory text and common sense.” In this regard, the decision is a substantial rebuke to lower courts that have expanded and inflated NEPA’s requirements.
Fitting for this moment in time, Seven County Infrastructure Coalition is something of a requel to Vermont Yankee. In that 1978 opinion, the Court had explained that “courts are to play only a limited role” in reviewing agency compliance with NEPA, an admonition many lower courts (including the D.C. Circuit) had seemed to forget.
This rebuke of lower courts is not confined to the Kavanaugh opinion. The court was unanimous in concluding that the D.C. Circuit had adopted an unduly expansive interpretation of agency obligations under NEPA–an interpretation contrary to the statutory text and the Supreme Court’s own prior decisions. As Justice Sotomayor’s opinion concurring-in-the-judgement makes clear, the D.C. Circuit opinion below was hard to square with the Court’s prior decisions in Department of Transportation v. Public Citizen and Metropolitan Edison v. PANE, particularly insofar as the D.C. Circuit sought to require the Surface Transportation board to consider environmental impacts from other projects over which the STB has no control and could not address.
Even more significant is the Court’s declaration that “the central principle of judicial review in NEPA cases is deference.” So there is no confusion, Justice Kavanaugh makes the point again a few pages later: “The bedrock principle of judicial review in NEPA cases can be stated in a word: Deference.”
As Justice Kavanaugh explains, this is a consequence of recognizing that judicial review of an EIS is to be conducted under the arbitrary and capricious standard, and represents only one element in reviewing an agency act
Article from Reason.com
The Reason Magazine website is a go-to destination for libertarians seeking cogent analysis, investigative reporting, and thought-provoking commentary. Championing the principles of individual freedom, limited government, and free markets, the site offers a diverse range of articles, videos, and podcasts that challenge conventional wisdom and advocate for libertarian solutions. Whether you’re interested in politics, culture, or technology, Reason provides a unique lens that prioritizes liberty and rational discourse. It’s an essential resource for those who value critical thinking and nuanced debate in the pursuit of a freer society.
