A unanimous Supreme Court decision has significantly narrowed the scope of environmental reviews required under the 1970 National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), a move that could accelerate the approval process for major infrastructure projects, a development with far-reaching implications for commercial real estate.

The case at the center of this ruling, Seven County Infrastructure Coalition, et al. v. Eagle County, Colorado, et al., involved a proposal to build an 88-mile railroad connecting Utah’s oil-rich Uinta Basin to the national freight network, thereby facilitating the transport of oil to Gulf Coast refineries. The U.S. Surface Transportation Board, after holding six public meetings, collecting 1,800 comments and preparing a 3,600-page Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), ultimately approved the project. However, Eagle County and several environmental groups challenged the decision and the D.C. Circuit Court found that the Board had violated NEPA by failing to adequately consider the “reasonably foreseeable” environmental impacts of related oil drilling and refining activities—referred to in industry terms as “upstream” and “downstream” effects.

The Supreme Court, however, took a different view. Writing for the Court, Justice Brett Kavanaugh emphasized that NEPA “does not mandate particular results, but simply prescribes the necessary process” for environmental review. He criticized lower courts for taking “an aggressive role in policing agency compliance with NEPA,” arguing that they had failed to give agencies the judicial deference required by law. The Court’s opinion described NEPA as a “procedural cross-check” meant to inform, not paralyze, agency decision-making. Agencies, the justices said, are required to identify environmental impacts but retain the authority to weigh those impacts against the potential benefits of a project.