The Supreme Court on Thursday lowered the scope of environmental research for critical infrastructure projects, potentially accelerating permits for highways, airports and pipelines. [emphasis, links added]
The judgment is the latest loss to environmentalists by the conservative Supreme Court, which recently took measures aimed at protecting wetlands and preventing transstate air pollution.
President Donald Trump has often criticized the administration's environmental assessment process for being too heavy.
The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), signed by President Richard Nixon, is considered one of the basic environmental legislation enacted at the beginning of the modern environmental movement.
CNN reported that the Supreme Court began the final period of its term to consider decisions about birthright citizenship, transgender care and religion.
Judge Brett Kavanaugh wrote the court's ruling without any objection. Ultimately, both liberals and conservative judges agreed to the final ruling.
Kavanaugh ruled that the environmental problem in the case was an 88-mile railway that would transport waxy crude oil from Utah's UINTA basin to an existing rail network, which was “not close.”
Target [NEPA] It is to inform the agent of decision-making, not paralysis.
“The courts should bear substantial respect and should not micromanage the choices of these agencies, as long as they belong to a reasonable broad area, Kavanaugh wrote.
“In short, NEPA is a procedural cross-check, not a substantial barrier,” He later added. “The purpose of the law is to inform institutions of decision-making, not paralyzing.”
Conservative Judge Neil Gorsuch withdrew himself from the case. He did not explain his decision to withdraw his appeal, but it was on Capitol Hill Democrats claim that Denver billionaire Philip Anschutz was a major Gorsuch supporter of billionaire Philip Anschutz, who had financial interests in the outcome of the case.
Three liberals in the court, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, all agreed to the decision, but used different reasons.
Sotomayor wrote these three books, thinking The environmental examinations of federal institutions should be limited to their competency areas only.
The surface transport board that handles the assessment in this case is largely related to the transport project, not the refining project.
“Under NEPA’s leadership, agencies must consider the environmental impact of their decisions,” Sotomayor wrote. “Here, the board correctly determines that it does not assume any responsibility for the consequences of oil production upstream or downstream of the railway because it cannot legally consider these consequences as part of the approval process.”
The case focused on an 88-mile railway that would transport waxy crude from Utah’s Uinta Basin to an existing rail network, making it easier for the oil and gas industry to ship goods to refineries across the country.
According to legal requirements, the Ground Transport Commission conducted an environmental assessment of the railway, but environmentalists believe that the review should be more comprehensive and take into account the implications of the downstream of the railway.
In other words, they believe that the assessment should include increasing the impact of crude oil refining.
The Biden administration justifies the incomplete scrutiny of government agencies. In this regard, Biden and the Trump administration are similar.
Reading for a rest in a conservative profile
