Limiting environmental review, the justices put development ahead of communities

The Supreme Court’s decision in May to narrow the scope of environmental reviews under the 1969 National Environmental Policy Act is a dangerous concession to short-term development interests at the expense of long-term public and environmental health. Far from simply “streamlining” federal reviews, the ruling opens the door to projects with massive ecological and climate consequences, all while silencing the voices of the frontline communities that NEPA was designed to protect.

At the heart of this ruling lies the Uinta Basin Railway, a massive crude oil transport project in Utah and Colorado that epitomizes the type of high-risk development NEPA was expressly designed to evaluate. The railway would move up to 350,000 barrels of oil per day through wildfire-prone terrain, critical wildlife corridors and hydrologically sensitive areas, including parts of the Colorado River basin. These are not abstract risks; they are well-documented threats to regional air quality, water security and ecological resilience.

Yet under the high court’s new interpretation, federal agencies are no longer obligated to assess these broader downstream impacts. This decision effectively hollows out NEPA’s foundational purpose and establishes a dangerous precedent that accelerating industrial development now takes priority over environmental responsibility, climate foresight and public health protection.

On the surface, the court’s ruling may sound like a pragmatic effort to reduce bureaucratic delay. In reality, it unleashes unchecked development with minimal public accountability.

The National Environmental Policy Act has functioned for over four decades as America’s primary tool for environmental transparency. It allows communities, scientists and policymakers to evaluate how major projects will affect air quality, drinking water, biodiversity and climate resilience. NEPA does not prohibit development but rather demands that development proceed with full knowledge of its consequences. Crucially, it guarantees that those most impacted — often low-income, rural or historically marginalized communities — have a formal voice in shaping the decisions that affect their health and environment.

When environmental reviews are weakened, public participation erodes. And, like a landslide, the erosion of credible science, fairness of the process and the legitimacy of the final decision crumbles.

This ruling does not simply just greenlight a single oil rail project, it sets a sweeping legal precedent that could allow infrastructure projects nationwide to bypass or dramatically curtail meaningful environmental review. From pipelines proposed in coastal wetlands to mining operations in wildfire-prone regions and energy corridors near indigenous lands, the decision weakens the federal government’s obligation to fully assess long-term ecological and community impacts.

Without robust oversight, developers will face fewer questions about methane emissions, biodiversity loss, groundwater contamination and the compounding effects of fossil fuel expansion on the climate crisis. The result is a regulatory landscape where high-risk projects can advance with limited scrutiny, undermining both environmental safeguards and public trust.

It is difficult to view this ruling in isolation. It reflects a broader and troubling pattern in American environmental policy in which short-term industrial gains are prioritized over long-term public health, ecological resilience and intergenerational responsibility.

Proponents argue that scaling back environmental review will reduce red tape and accelerate economic growth. But at what cost? The historical record is clear: from the toxic legacy of Love Canal to the devastating contamination of the Animas River, we’ve seen what happens when development proceeds without adequate scrutiny. In each case, it was local communities, not corporations, that suffered the consequences.

Environmental impact assessments are not bureaucratic obstacles. They act as foundational safeguards to ensure that decisions are made transparently and equitably, not solely at the discretion of powerful private interests. These assessments help level the playing field, giving everyday Americans a voice in developments that directly affect their lives. Dismantling these protections may expedite pipelines and freeways, but at the cost of creating a system where families live in the shadow of industrial expansion, their health and futures treated as collateral.

Congress still has the power to respond. Lawmakers can act decisively to reaffirm NEPA’s original intent by mandating that climate and cumulative health impacts be central to environmental reviews. Federal agencies, in turn, must reestablish that meaningful public engagement is not a procedural formality, but a fundamental requirement. And states, many of which maintain their own environmental assessment frameworks, can step up where federal oversight falters, implementing more rigorous localized protections.

As the pace and intensity of the climate crisis accelerates, the public needs more transparency, not less, and more accountability, not expanded loopholes. While this ruling may offer legal relief to developers, it marks a grave retreat from our commitments to environmental justice and a future built with foresight, not sacrificed to expedience.

Diego Tovar is the director of campus and civic engagement at the Rachel Carson Council.